Talk:List of U.S. National Historic Landmarks by state

message: Although not nearly as numerous as the National Register of Historic Places, I think this list might be better served by splitting it up into fifty articles, one per state. Any objections? howcheng  {chat} 22:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea, just make sure they are indexed in a list and categorised. SP-KP 22:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split this into different pages per state

message: I have removed Cathedral Basilica of St. Joseph (San Jose) from the list of National Historic Landmarks, California section. Here's what I wrote on the cathedral's Wikipedia article discussion page:  I have searched the National Park Service web site, and though I can find the Cathedral listed on the National Register of Historic Places, it is not included on the NPS's list of National Historic Landmarks (every National Historic Landmark is included on the National Register of Historic Places, but not every place on the register is a designated historic landmark.) I know that the Cathedral website says that the place is a National Historic Landmark, but I think their webmaster might have misunderstood the NPS's designation. I'm removing from the article the WP category of National Historic Landmark. If somebody has more up-to-date information indicating that the designation is correct, they can restore it.
Whyaduck 15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  California Section: Cathedral of St. Joseph, San Jose 

message: I'm rather befuddled by Appendix C of the National Park Service List of National Historic Landmarks by State.  Appendix C states that certain units of the National Park System are automatically listed in the "National Register".  Does this mean that they are automatically listed only in the National Register of Historic Places, or does there inclusion in this document mean that they are also automatically listed as National Historic Landmarks?  --Buaidh 17:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Simultaneous to you typing this comment, I was writing my comments elsewhere on the exact same issue.  Short story is, I'm confused too, and have concluded, until I see evidence otherwise, that sites listed in Appendix C are not automatically designated as NHLs.  My full (overwordy?) comments are at Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Colorado#Yucca House, Hovenweep, Sand Creek.   Ipoellet 17:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The National Park Service has replied that Appendix C pertains only to the National Register of Historic Places, and does not pertain to any designation of National Historic Landmarks unless elsewhere specifically designated.  --Buaidh 19:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making the effort to check this issue out with NPS!  Ipoellet 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look in the right part of their full National Register database you find a column which indicates the item is listed in the NHL list.  So within the NRHP list the NHL items are marked as such.  (SEWilco 05:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Appendix C

message: Look at the References section.  It's complaining about citations without text.  Probably the citation templates got changed to whine about missing descriptions.  I can't fix it due to an ArbCom kangaroo court.  (SEWilco 15:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check the References 

message: I've now worked through all the NHLs on 3 state-specific tables of NHLs:  New York's 258 or so NHLs, Arkansas' 17 NHLs, Arizona's 40 NHLs.  The NYS list was created from scratch (put into table form by Dmadeo). The last two I edited from the above-discussed tables generated from NRIS reports.  They provide a good starting point, but beware:
#The table reports are lists of NRHPs, not NHLs.  The number will differ (probably higher than # of NHLs in state).  Editor needs to focus on getting the right list of NHLs.
#Edit names first, before you or others follow red links to generate new stub articles using less preferable names.  Many NRHP names are not exactly the same as NHL names.  My preference is to edit them to use NHL name, as reported in what I call NHL summary report.  Except I prefer to unwind NHL names convoluted by commas, e.g. for "Fillmore, Millard, House" I prefer "Millard Fillmore House"
#Putting into new alphabetical order then helps in editing.  No obvious order in initial table report AFAIK. 
#Some obvious duplication needs to be removed.  E.g. multiple occurences of "Merritt Parkway" for each township in CT that it runs through.  Easy.
#Usually boundary increase NRHPs are also easy to eliminate.
#Some NHLs will not be covered.  The NRIS data does not necessarily indicate NHL status correctly.  Arkansas's table report missed 3.  Arizona's table report missed 2 or 3, depending on interpretation of one complicated situation
#Some listed NRHPs are not NHLs at all, not associated no way with a NHL.  AZ report generated 2 or 1, depending on interpretation of one complicated situation.
#Date column, labelled "Date Listed", provides year in which site was listed in NRHP, not what I want to present.  After editing an article for every NHL that included infobox distinguishing between NHL designation date vs. NRHP date, I then came back and replaced this column by "Date Designated" giving year of NHL designation for each one. 
#Multiple NRHPs may be associated with a single NHL.  Example: Mary Jane Colter Buildings in AZ relates to 4 separate NRHPs, of which 2 appeared in table report.  Example: Camden Expedition Sites  in Arkansas relates to 8 or 9 NRHPs, all 9 candidates appeared in table report.
This is just a warning to editors.  I believe that using the table report as a starter was a help overall.  A big benefit is that it makes you notice boundary increases and NHLs that are otherwise comprised of more than one NRHP, so that your article on the NHL can include all the refnums and properly describe them all.  Without this table report, and forcing you to try to find the NHL home for each row in it, it would be easy to miss many of those.  Thanks and credit due to the several of you who provided the table reports.  doncram 02:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The database-created tables are sorted by county.  There were several reasons, although the only one I remember is some eastern states have so many entries that articles by county are needed.  As mentioned, the NRIS database has one entry for each county which a site is in.  One battle site took place at a river crossing which is now a county line.  The Arkansas point from which the Louisiana Purchase was surveyed is at the intersection of three counties.  Click "Preview" while editing and sort the table by name and such duplicates become apparent.  (SEWilco 03:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warnings for Editors of new Tables of NHLs

message: I thought the name of the game here is to minimize or prevent disambiguation. Now we've got people stripping entire sections to make new pages! Isn't that just as bad a purposely making an entire group of disambiguated pages? --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 11:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you expecting this article to contain all the NHLs?  There are thousands, and we can't fit them all on a single usable page with current Wikipedia technology.  (SEWilco 14:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recommend you visit Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NHL coords to see what happens when even a mostly complete and highly stripped-down list of all the NHLs looks like - and how slowly it loads. Yikes! So our goal has been to break out one list per state, and keep List of U.S. National Historic Landmarks by state as an index to them all. This approach wouldn't be desirable if the comprehensive list would reasonably fit on one page, but definitely is here. Plus, this gives us an opportunity to get the members of the individual states' WikiProjects involved in improving the NHL articles - each list is being tagged to its state's WikiProject as well as . Ipoellet 16:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are similar lists of the even more numerous NRHP sites.  The NRHP pages will need a similar structure with even smaller granularity.  (SEWilco 16:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  And maybe in the end the entire system of lists can achieve FL status... One can dream.  Ipoellet 16:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation Page 

message: Background:  List of National Historic Landmarks in Maine was originally set up by me with format "Last, First" where the landmark name was led with a personal name. Doncram reset them to "First Last" on 2007-10-17.
My reasoning in setting the list (Maine one among others) up as "Last, First" was twofold:
# To remain as faithful as possible to the key reference that I believe we are using:  , which uses the "Last, First" format.
# Because the column is sortable alphabetically, putting the last name first keeps the sorting working as intended.
For these reasons, I personally believe we should be using the "Last, First" format. But if the consensus is to go to "First Last", then consistency is paramount. If Maine is shifted to "First Last", then we should make sure all other state NHL lists are formatted that way. In addition, they should be re-alphabetized so that the initial presentation order goes off of the first name rather than the last. (I.e. the Daniel Coit Gilman Summer House listed before Fort Halifax rather than after Fort Western. The same would apply to naval vessels: USS Arizona (shipwreck) listed under U rather than A.)
Anyone want to weigh in on this?  -Ipoellet 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the Maine list was in progress and I was not sure whether the "Last, First" names were going to be "unwound" into "First Last" or not, so i (perhaps awkwardly) raised the issue by changing the entries there.  Thanks Ipoellet for opening this discussion here.  I came around to the use of "First Last" format while contributing to the NY NHL list that Daniel Case and Dmadeo first developed, and it was one or both of their judgment to go with First Last.  I think the main reasoning was that referring to places like "Fillmore, Millard, House" is just too convoluted.  So on other state lists including Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, I have been implementing "First Last" also.  And yes, then logically one also has to edit the list into alphabetical order based on those revised names.  About ship names, if "USS Mystate" is used it can be in the U's, or you can present it as "Mystate (battleship)" and list it in the M's. doncram 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think in the Help pages for table sorting I've seen hidden sort keys.  So you might not need a separate column to alter the sorting.  (SEWilco 18:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Against changing from First Last to Last, First, for various reasons. Who is going to redo state lists & change links? The Wikipedia article naming pattern is "First Last, as in John Smith House, not Smith, John, House. clariosophic 18:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we're concerned about what is correct or best, not what is easy.  If there are many changes which should be done, that task will either be on a To Do list for a while or a bot will be requested (if possible).  (SEWilco 19:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, my preference appears to be in the minority, which is fine.  And there do seem to be some very good reasons to go with "First Last". For the ordering issue, I like doncram's numbered-list solution that I boxed above. Since I'm already working on a major upgrade of List of National Historic Landmarks in California, then I'll be happy to implement it there as a pilot to see how it works in practice (unless someone has an objection). It will take me a few days to finish grinding that out, but I'll try to get it done this weekend.  -Ipoellet 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've now imported the new California table, including the "First Last" format, the numbered column, and removing the cross-reference notes at the top (as in #Format for each state list of NHLs page below). Altogether, I think the format works pretty well now.  Ipoellet 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed it does work quite well.  Great improvement for List of National Historic Landmarks in California, which awkwardly was organized by counties beforehand.  I like the black stylin' in the header and number listing, at least for the stylin' bein' differen' for a chang'.  :) For California, which is a truly different than other states, I wonder if some kinda Southern vs. Northern vs. Central distinction oughta be allowed, but this is way better than before.  Indeed there is wikiproject for Southern California.  It is the only state that has two Blue Cross/Blue Shield systems, also, fyi. doncram 00:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of names: "Last, First" vs "First Last" 

message: It's now by state, followed by "Commonwealths and Territories", "Associated States", and "Foreign States".  Not sure if the last one should be an item name, or if it should be just named "Morocco", since there is only one NHL in a foreign state.  By the way, I wanted to credit Crtrue for having started use of section divisions based off of Census regions, which helps organize the non-States although it is not reflected in the list of states now. doncram 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List Organization for non-States

message: The new format of table based on Ipoellet's idea is now fairly fully implemented.  What would make the article better, toward reaching Featured List or Featured article status, as Ipoellet suggests?  Will it stand on its own, or should it be included in a revamped National Historic Landmark article? Or should we just keep working on the state lists for a while. I do believe the main list should not be nominated for feature until most or all of the state lists are very presentable, too, but many of them are coming along nicely. doncram 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Towards Featured List

message: I would like to make a request for Illinois members. Could we get rid of the German U-boat for our picture on that page and replace it with something like Lincoln's Tomb. As neat as the U-boat is, its really not from or represent the state that well. I just didn't want to change it without discussion first if any is needed.--Kranar drogin 03:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean underground U-boats are not very popular in Illinois?  I assumed I just hadn't seen many because they're underground.  Well, pick something else...maybe look at the pictures in the state's table and find the most common number of pillars or pick something near the center of the state.  Or your favorite color.  Or the first site listed, or the oldest site listed.  If someone doesn't like your choice then we can continue the discussion here.  (SEWilco 04:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah no, maybe it is in Chicago. I picked Lincoln's Tomb for now, if a better image comes along that represents the state's list and the state itself, can change to that instead. Sorry to have bothered you with this, just wanted to make sure I wasn't stepping on any process here.--Kranar drogin 04:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In general, since lots of NHL pictures are available for most states (most, not all - ahem, o Dakotan photographers), and no one pic is necessarily the image to represent the state, I don't think any editor should hesitate about cycling those images whenever they like - provided, of course, it's still an NHL in that state.  Ipoellet 16:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  feh! is Lincoln's tomb all that interesting?  :)  FYI in initial choices of pics for the table of NHLs by state, I sought some visual variety and topic variety across states, constrained by what photos were conveniently available.  the u-boat is a fun, unusual NHL.   Nonetheless, i do concur with Ipoellet's wise laissez-faire vision about this.  cheers, doncram 19:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illinois photo pic choice

message: Could the map now adorning the article be improved somehow?  It is just an index to the 50 state outlines currently.  If it showed the distribution of actual NHL sites, then it would be more interesting to me. doncram (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: The image :Image:Nathaniel Russell House (Stair).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Nathaniel Russell House (Stair).jpg

message: Several new landmarks were just added to the NHL list: http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/011609c.html --BaronLarf 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nine new NHLs 

message: I moved the article to a name that reflected the fact that what is listed here are the states, but that was reverted.  A list of National Historic Landmarks would have to include at least two National Historic Landmarks: this names precisely none.  Ideas? Kevin McE (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically, this originally was a list of all U.S. states and their respective National Historic Landmarks. However, that got to be too large, so a list for each state was created. Alas, the title you chose, "List of U.S. states by National Historic Landmark" implies that you want to see which state(s) each NHL belongs to, which I don't think was your intent. The most accurate title is going to be something like "List of lists of National Historic Landmarks by U.S. state". There's plenty of precedent for that. Unfortunately, with more than 250 incoming links that's a fair amount of work to fix post-move. howcheng  {chat} 18:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: Is there any reason to retain the numeric column on the far left? It's not like the count of rows here is important.  (I've added sort keys to the State column so that it sorts into the starting order.) Magic♪piano 23:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, probably not needed. —howcheng  {chat} 00:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number column not needed? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of U.S. National Historic Landmarks by state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111105084558/http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/designations/Lists/LIST11.pdf to http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/designations/Lists/LIST11.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305040615/http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/011609c.html to http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/011609c.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of U.S. National Historic Landmarks by state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040606195612/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/default.cfm to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/default.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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