Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:23, 20 April 2024

• WT:NRHP

National Register of Historic Places Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

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 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70

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 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)

A property may be historic for one reason, and the district in which it sits may be historic for a different reason. Imagine a 19th-century town center that has a 1930s Art Deco building in it (perhaps the only such building in the entire community). Both notable, but the building does not contribute to the district's character. In your case, if the district is ever updated, the building's status might be changed to contributing. Magic♪piano 22:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 20 April 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)

• Project-Class National Register of Historic Places pages
• NA-importance National Register of Historic Places pages
• Project-Class National Register of Historic Places articles of NA-importance
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists