Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City

message: Why is #2 yellow? --In Defense of the Artist (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the compliment on the table.  #2, the African Burial Ground National Monument, has yellow coloring because that is the current (perhaps less than optimal) color choice for National Monuments.  Coloring under discussion now at Talk page of wp:NRHP.  The article should have, but did not, reflect the coloring.  I just revised the 2nd infobox in the article so that it does show the yellow coloring now.  Thanks for raising the question.  The reason for varied colorings should perhaps also be given in text before the table, but perhaps it is enough to ensure that the color does appear in the article.  I hope the latter, now true, suffices. doncram (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: That's a great table

message: Despite "List" being in the title, this is far more than a mere list and is to be rated on Stub / Start / B scale as an article, then to go for Featured List.  See discussion within Talk page of WP:NRHP for criteria.  I worked on this article, am rating it Start as it meets proposed criteria discussed there. doncram 01:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating as an ARTICLE not as merely a LIST

message: Note: This page was created by splitting off from List of National Historic Landmarks in New York, which was too big. doncram 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: Could a cross-reference table of New York City-declared Landmarks and/or Historic Sites be added below, like there is a cross-reference table of NY State Historic Sites added to the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York (non-NYC)?  See also List of National Historic Landmarks in Illinois.  I think this would make the article more valuable, and provides means to show alternative names for same site, when NHL vs. NYC naming differs.  FYI, all the state historic sites are outside NYC.  doncram 19:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NHLs cross-reference to NYC Landmarks

message: :Image:StPaulsChapel3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dmadeo or someone else -- Could someone make the fair use argument?  I am not familiar with this.  I visited the article St. Paul's Chapel and note another image there is also disputed, the :Image:StPaulsChapel1.jpg. But that one I find in HABS, so I noted that in the Image's talk page, that the pic is hence public domain so fair use argument not needed.  Not sure how to finish resolving that with the bot, but i did raise it on the Talk page.  For the :Image:StPaulsChapel3.jpg, which is the nicer pic, I hope we could keep the image by making the fair use argument. doncram (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a more recent picture I've taken of St Pauls, but we'll never get this particular angle again unfortunately. I'll try to dig it up tomorrowdm (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thot it was so, that it is a nice pic, taken from a distance back which is not possible now.  Can u just make the fair use argument, sounds like the fact that it is low quality, and use does not detract from the original's value, etc., as i was reading on the image page, would suffice, just have to say it for our 2 pages (list of NHLs, article itself).  I did imagine u could have already taken another new pic, too.  New pic would also add to the article.  But this one is worth saving if we can, i think it really is nice. doncram (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I responded with what I hope is appropriate fair use rationale, on the image page for StPaulsChapel1.jpg, and with additional comment on its Talk page.  Knock on wood.doncram (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:StPaulsChapel3.jpg

message: For American Stock Exchange and New York Stock Exchange, and perhaps others, it seems to me that separate articles on the NHL buildings are needed.  Any much discussion of the architecture would seem misplaced, in their current articles, i think.  Like how R. H. Macy and Company Store (building) and the New York Studio School of Drawing, Painting and Sculpture (building) are separated.
Having those separated would allow their articles to include more about the buildings from the NRHP docs, and then the descriptions here could be improved (supported by the articles).  The descriptions now are pretty flat, dontcha think? doncram (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's the right way to go, especially when there's enough detail to make it a good article.   It's not the highest mark on my personal todo list for this though. dm (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 05:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am not otherwise particularly interested in those buildings, on their own (though i think the NYSE one is designed by one of the more hifalutin of the architects).  But I am believing that it is necessary to check all of the descriptions in the NYC and NYS nhl lists, to verify that they are fair descriptions based on the articles.  (And I know some are not fair, there are some overstatements/misstatements and some which speak to information not included in their articles, who knows where it is from.)  As part of bringing the NHL lists, which are indices to the articles, up to Featured-List-eligible standards.  And I want to get FL-status for both lists, and currently think they should be proposed together (see how i have recently been writing the lead for the NYS nhl list, to describe them both.)  Do you see why I think it is needed, then, or do u think i am not correct in my assumptions somewhere?  Maybe i am sweating it too much, thinking all the articles need to be developed up to Start quality and to correspond closely to any description in the Lists (but if they don't correspond, then separate footnotes to the descriptions are needed, which I would not want to take on...) sincerely, doncram (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  separate building articles needed? 

message: USS Edson article currently states it is now in Philadelphia and is not returning.  Not specifically sourced, i dont think, but do we need to strike from NYC and NY overall list already?  doncram (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS Edson is where 

message: The "Date of Designation" column in the table is alphabetical, meaning it lists the landmarks designated in April first, December second, etc. - anybody know what should be done about this? Experimental Hobo Infiltration Droid (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a typo in one of the dates that caused it to sort first, which i just fixed.  Does it sort properly for you now?  If not, please give more details about your browser. It sorts properly by date, not alphabetically, for me, using Firefox browser. Thanks. doncram (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Designation 

message: Now that we have a few items which either *were* here or are now delisted, perhaps we should add it? dm (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * User:Doncram took care of creating it dm (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisted table? 

message: There are nine "national sites" in Manhattan, three in the bay, one on the Bronx/Westchester border and three in Staten Island. Also there are a few in Brooklyn and Queens. I just visited all the ones in Manhattan the other day, and so I changed the article to include themEricl (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Parks in NYC 

message: The new entry Woodlawn Cemetery is still missing in the list (ref). -- Firefox13 (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New entry 

message: # Why don't you use the citation like this: ref> </ref> 
# Is there a difference between being a "National Historic Landmark vs. being entered into the list of National Historic Places"? I am specifically concerned with the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture because that is not listed as a landmark, the aritcle presently says it is, but I have a source that says it was entered into "the list of National Historic Places" - but I do not know what that means 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: National Historic Landmark vs. entered into the list of National Historic Places

message: Similar to USS Edison (previously edited), Fire Fighter is shown in its article as having been moved out to Long Island. Slugabed (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire Fighter 

message: Is this in fact an NHL, or just on the NRHP?  There is no outside documentation that I can find listing it as an NHL, including the source attributed in the article.  Extensive searching on the National Park Service's own site, including the National Archives, has not found any confirmation of this.  I propose it be removed from this list unless it can be verified. Cyberczar1 (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Workers Cooperatives 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National Historic Landmark which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 22:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress