| Revision as of 14:29, 16 April 2024 editHog Farm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators55,728 edits →Good article reassessment for George Rogers Clark National Historical Park: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:24, 16 April 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,381 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 69) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | == Good article reassessment for ] == | ||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. | ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. | ||
| == ] == | |||
| The article has been about the statue in Washington, D.C., even before my overhaul of the page. Would it make more sense to change the title to ] or something along those lines? There are several copies, and some can be seen in the article's gallery. ] (]) 11:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@] Perhaps ]. Any interest in creating ], etc, for the other copies? ---] <sub>(])</sub> 16:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Yeah I like your suggestion better. I'm currently working on ] (8 down, 6 more to go). I'll try to gather sources for the Chicago version when I'm done with my current project. ] (]) 04:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Website of the current occupant that just so happens to be occupying a NRHP property == | == Website of the current occupant that just so happens to be occupying a NRHP property == | ||
| Line 31: | Line 23: | ||
| :To me, it's a matter of notability. I don't think whatever fly-by-night business that happens to be occupying a property warrants inclusion in an article at all; however, if the business is a notable one, or if it's been an occupant long enough to have accumulated local/regional press, then it likely would be mentioned in the article's prose. At that point, depending on the degree of notability, it would then warrant an external link and possibly the link in the infobox. ] (]) 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC) | :To me, it's a matter of notability. I don't think whatever fly-by-night business that happens to be occupying a property warrants inclusion in an article at all; however, if the business is a notable one, or if it's been an occupant long enough to have accumulated local/regional press, then it likely would be mentioned in the article's prose. At that point, depending on the degree of notability, it would then warrant an external link and possibly the link in the infobox. ] (]) 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :I agree with DrOrinScrivello on when to include the link and, looking at articles I created, I've put them both places. But maybe the infobox makes more sense if it is the original organization (like the church website) and the EL section makes sense if it's not the original purpose but a long-term occupant (like ]). This is just a thought; I don't think either location is "wrong". ] (]) 01:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC) | :I agree with DrOrinScrivello on when to include the link and, looking at articles I created, I've put them both places. But maybe the infobox makes more sense if it is the original organization (like the church website) and the EL section makes sense if it's not the original purpose but a long-term occupant (like ]). This is just a thought; I don't think either location is "wrong". ] (]) 01:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == neighborhood/historic district == | |||
| If a neighborhood's boundaries are also the same boundaries for its historic district, should the name of the article be just the neighborhood's name or the name of the historic district? ] (]) 10:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As a rule of thumb, if a historic district is mostly or entirely synonymous with a feature, they can be represented in the same article (with naming priority given to the locale's name, not the NRHP listing name). For example, some locales (like ]) have HDs encompassing the entire site. It depends, I think, on coverage. If coverage of the historic district itself is far too extensive to fit comfortably, it can be split in that case. In almost every case, though, it's enough to merge them and create a redirect for the NRHP listing name. ] can be embedded in the place infobox and relevant sections created as needed. <b><span style="color:#2dd88f">–</span> <i>]]]</i></b> 17:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ***Thank you for the advice. ] (]) 00:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | == Good article reassessment for ] == | ||
Revision as of 16:24, 16 April 2024
Shortcut | National Register of Historic Places Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | WikiProject National Register of Historic Places was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 28 September 2009. |
| WikiProject National Register of Historic Places was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 17 October 2011. |
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
|
Good article reassessment for Ben's Chili Bowl
Ben's Chili Bowl has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
Website of the current occupant that just so happens to be occupying a NRHP property
The question is, should the website of the current tenant/business of NRHP buildings be included as EL or in infobox as the website? Graywalls (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- To me, it's a matter of notability. I don't think whatever fly-by-night business that happens to be occupying a property warrants inclusion in an article at all; however, if the business is a notable one, or if it's been an occupant long enough to have accumulated local/regional press, then it likely would be mentioned in the article's prose. At that point, depending on the degree of notability, it would then warrant an external link and possibly the link in the infobox. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with DrOrinScrivello on when to include the link and, looking at articles I created, I've put them both places. But maybe the infobox makes more sense if it is the original organization (like the church website) and the EL section makes sense if it's not the original purpose but a long-term occupant (like here). This is just a thought; I don't think either location is "wrong". RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for The Blackstone Hotel
The Blackstone Hotel has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 01:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Individually listed non-contributing properties to historic districts?
Generally, when a building is non-contributing to a historic district, we wouldn't care about it for this wikiproject. But I just created the article for the Danish Brotherhood in America Headquarters, which was individually listed in 2016 when it turned 50 years old. The nomination form mentioned that it was within the Gold Coast Historic District (Omaha, Nebraska) but was listed as a non-contributing property because, at the time, it was only 31 years old. I expected to see that text followed with something like "and we're requesting it be added at this time" but it didn't.
The historic district nomination form does list 3717 Harney as non-contributing but doesn't say why. I looked for updates on the Gold Coast Historic District that reclassified the property, but didn't see any. (This wouldn't be a an increase per se, since the building sits squarely within the original boundary.)
Clearly, this is an obscure question, but is this really an individually listed non-contributing property to a historic district? - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for George Rogers Clark National Historical Park
George Rogers Clark National Historical Park has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 14:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Categories: