Talk:National Historic Sites of Canada

message: Whn I look at Ontario, there are a lot of items listed that are not in [] why? --Brat32 15:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The Saint George Antiochian Church currently links to a church in the MA, USA. Is this right?
Did they mean Saint George Antiochian Church in Montreal, Quebec instead?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.223.219 (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: move.
The title should be List of National Historic Sites in Canada, as "National Historic Site" is a title/proper name, not a generic usage.Skookum1 (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move/rename

message: I just went through the available links and placed :Category:National Historic Sites of Canada and :Category:Heritage sites in British Columbia (NB if that 's' on "sites" were capitalized I would have been more selective...); on all but Fort Victoria, which at present is just a Victoria redirect (but needs to be a separate article; this applies to the targeted article in all cases, e.g. the Powell River one goes to the Powell River town article as there's no separate article for the town centre; likewise at other locations it's a feature of the linked place/item that's the historic site (e.g. it's not the whole of Silverdale that's the NHCS, but the location on the tracks where the robbery took place).  Tanu is the other one where the categories werne't placed as I've got to rewrite that, or rather that's really "New Tanu" (New Clew) and the original Tanu was eleshwere and it is the NHSC, so I'll fix that.  Anyone making one of the redlinks in future please be sure to add the BC heritage category also; the best maybe that can be doen with Harling Point is make the geography article on Harling Point and then see what there is for the cemetery that's citable/article material; could be just the one article; also re BC heritage sites there's lots more than are on this list; theoretically could include municipal-designated heritage too, as it's not British Columbia heritage sites, but heritage sites in British Columbia (not of, as in provincially-mandated).  List of heritage sites in British Columbia may already exist, I don't know; should probably be a table where citations of who designated its heritage status can be shown/sorted.Skookum1 (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Catting the bag in BC

message: I dropped by World Heritage Site and, lo, "it" isn't one, "it" being Lonesome Lake in or near Tweedsmuir South Provincial Park, which is the site where Ralph Edwards based his conservation work/studies on the trumpeter swan.  I thought it was a UN World Heritage Site, maybe there's another classification?  I remember it being a big deal with the place got burned out in one of the epic forest fires in the Interior a few years ago.  Anyone here remember the story/  I posted a question at the WHS talkpage and also on Talk:Leland Stowe, who authored Crusoe of Lonesome Lake; if not right now, I'll start the Lonesome Lake article but it's an otherwise obscure lake out of tens of thousands in BC; presumably it's still a trumpeter-conservation area, despite the fires.  I don't remember all that went on because of the fire, adn I never read the book, or that written by his wife Frances Ruffles On My Longjohns, which is a classic of "bush whife" literature.  Not an NHSC or, it appears, a WHS, unelss maybe the latter was cancelled after the cabin was burned out?Skookum1 (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Lonesome Lake]] in the Chilcotin - WHS?

message: I opened a discussion section at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Canadian historic sites task force about creating a WikiProject task force on Canadian historic sites. doncram (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion notice about Task force 

message: This should not be directed here, it should be an article on the board itself. I've re-linked it and unbolded it (and un-italicized it).Skookum1 (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada]] redirect

message: An IP user has been adding infoboxes to lots of NHSC articles and re those in BC I've been busy removing flag icons from them (see WP:FLAGCRUFT), as well as correcting the "province" field from Alberta to BC, as apparently a blanket copy-paste was being used and the IP user wasn't too particular about making sure the content in the boxes was actually correct.  No some, I took a start at seeing "Parks Canada" in the governing body/jurisdiction field, but "let it go" e.g. re Gold Harbour, British Columbia as it does happen to be within Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve though to my knowledge neither Parks Canada nor the Haida Nation, the governing bodies of that park, have done very much with it (I think it is, not sure - can't find a map showing its location relative to the park)....but on the McLean Mill and Royal Theatre the field still said "Parks Canada" and I'm unsure about that; the Royal Theatre SFAIK is under the jurisdiction of the City of Victoria, I'm not sure about the mill; Yuquot definitely is not under Parks Canada jurisdiction.  Unless the mandating legislation provides for protection of the site and/or any monument/facility...Fort Steele, British Columbia I think is under a private contractor mandated via the BC government as is, I know for sure, Barkerville.  Can someone clarify this please?  i.e. does Parks Canada have any jurisdiction over sites that aren't directly under its control?  Or should these sites, e.g. Royal Theatre (Victoria) NOT say "Parks Canada" in the governing body field.  NB I only have time to work on the BC articles, could someone else would strip these infoboxes of their flags (and wrong provinces) for the rest of the country; they look really garish and when you think about it somewhere that was created/built under the red ensign or HBC flag or VI flag or Union Jack, or (as with Kitwanga Fort and Yuquot) existed long before the maple leaf flag, or any flag, are just not appropriate.Skookum1 (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The flag was put in because the  shows that it should be used by inserting . They just copied the example provided. I think that some improvements are needed to that template (Infobox nhsc) and I'll make some suggestions on the talk page. something lame from CBW 06:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That would similarly explain the presence of the Parks Canada link in "governing body", then?  I"m uncomfortable seeing it on Yuquot, which is under the government of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nations band government, who I doubt very much have any kind of management agreement with Parks Canada.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really they seem to have just assumed that. Probably I would have as well if you hadn't brought it up. It does explain why they were putting in | nrhp_type = Canadian National Historic Site though, which of course didn't appear in the article like that. something lame from CBW 07:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Parks Canada jurisdiction re infoboxes

message: The link for the Metropolitan Theatre in Winnipeg points to a listing for a theatre in Boston. I don't know how to properly fix this myself.
216.36.132.66 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I fixed it. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Link

message: I have started converting the list to table format - I've done Alberta (first alphabetically) and France (shortest), and I am about to embark on Ontario (the jurisdiction with which I am most familiar).  Since tables contain more content and are longer, separate lists are needed for each province/territory -- a pan-Canadian list in table form would be exceedingly long (unless we use collapsing tables for each jurisdiction, which just seems gimmicky to me).  Any thoughts on the tables done thus far? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: wow big job....i see a barn star in your future Moxy (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the Alberta one. Looks great. Even if you used collapsing tables the page size would still be too large for one article. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 11:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: With holidays and work this past month, I've gotten away from worked on the table in the Ontario list.  But I now have time to get back to it, and will hopefully get it done soon.  I separated out the other provincial lists, in anticipation of converting them to tables (and, frankly, sometimes I get tired of working on Ontario).  As such, since this article is no longer a list, I will proposed to move this to National Historic Site of Canada.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I am not wed to anything I did in the article - especially the section for the lists of national historic sites by location (where someone better at layout might be able to do a better job). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion to table 

message: I updated the list for British Columbia today using the database at http://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/lhn-nhs/index_e.asp. Apart from 3 new entries and 2 that were merged (Gitwangak National Historic Site), there were 3 wrong entries that I removed: Riverview Hospital (I believe it is in the process of becoming a NHS, but not yet approved), St. Stephen’s Anglican Church (obviously a confusion with the one in Quebec), and my favorite one: Silverdale, site of Canada's first train robbery :-) If this was a joke entry, it is somewhat concerning that it could stay for so long in the list (since 12 June 2008). It even made it into German Wikipedia, the initial version of the list there was simply translated from the English one. --Zeitlupe (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated BC list 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support I don't see any reason why not; go ahead and move. Reywas92Talk 01:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  If it seems like a no-brainer, and perhaps it is, you could always close the discussion and move it as an uncontroversial move. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind.  The closing guidelines suggest that you can't until 7 days have elapsed.  Sorry about that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Why is France in the third section of the article? 98.143.97.122 (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there are National Historic Sites of Canada located in France. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  France 

message: For those interested, a number of sites appear to have possibly been delisted/undesignated as NHSCs recently.  While there have been a number of former NHSCs over the years, it is usually due to the historic buildings or structures suffering demolition or fire.  In this case, a number of sites simply appear to have been delisted.  For those interested, the discussion is User talk:Skeezix1000#New NHSs.  We will be getting in touch with Parks Canada or the HSMBC to try and get confirmation/clarification/further information.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisted NHSCs 

message: I just noticed wikipedia has no list of National Historic Sites that are actually administered by Parks Canada. Is that worthy of its own list, or should those sites simply be flagged/highlighted somehow in the provincial lists? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't see the body that administers a site, whether it is Parks Canada or some other government, agency, non-profit or private landowner, as being particularly crucial information for overview lists (it's really background information for the actual articles for each site, IMHO).  A site isn't any more nationally historically significant because Parks Canada runs it versus, for example, the City of Montreal or the West Vancouver Historical Society.  Having said that, I have no objection to flagging Parks Canada sites on the lists (probably better than a separate list) - I may not think it's important to do so, but I equally don't think it detracts from anything I suppose.  A few years ago, Yoho had a good idea - he added an icon after the name of each site administered by Parks Canada on the lists, with a mention to that effect in the lead para.  Unfortunately, the icon was based on the Parks Canada logo and was deleted as a copyvio.  When I suggested to him that we replace it with some other freely-licensed beaver icon from Wikipedia Commons, he was not that keen, and the idea fell away.  That might be worth pursuing.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your response, Skeezix. It's not that Parks Canada sites are more historically significant, but it would give readers a fuller understanding of what Parks Canada does (part of why I considered a separate list). It also pretty well guarantees these sites will be open to the public - plenty of designated historic sites are privately owned. Finally, in my personal experience, museums administered by Parks Canada have much higher budgets than those that aren't, so the quality of the experience is often (though not always) better. Your idea about the beaver icon makes sense though - I think that should world, and hopefully not cause a problem with formatting the tables. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the quality of the experience, but in this age of budget cuts I bet some people at Parks Canada would enjoy hearing your compliments! :) (I now understand your comment about a separate list, although on that basis wouldn't a list of all Parks Canada facilities make more sense?)  As for the question at hand,  :File:Beaver 1 (PSF)(retouched).png is the icon being used at the Commons to designate NHSCs, but we could use anything if you have any ideas.  I don't think it would affect formatting.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone interested, after additional discussions with Themightyquill, I have started added beaver icons to the various lists identifying those sites administered by Parks Canada (Manitoba, Yukon and Prince Edward Island thus far). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administered by Parks Canada? 

message: Some of the provinces have subheadings showing how many sites some of its cities have, and I think that we should add Halifax since it has 35. RoshanMcG (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a Halifax subheading 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on National Historic Sites of Canada. 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/20121006084636/http://www.pc.gc.ca/clmhc-hsmbc/crit/crit2_e.asp to http://www.pc.gc.ca/clmhc-hsmbc/crit/crit2_e.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006084756/http://www.pc.gc.ca/clmhc-hsmbc/clmhc-hsmbc/clmhc-hsmbc4_e.asp to http://www.pc.gc.ca/clmhc-hsmbc/clmhc-hsmbc/clmhc-hsmbc4_e.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006084833/http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/r/system-reseau/sec1/sites-lieux9.aspx to http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/r/system-reseau/sec1/sites-lieux9.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605031111/http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/r/system-reseau/sec1/sites-lieux11.aspx to http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/r/system-reseau/sec1/sites-lieux11.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pc.gc.ca/APPS/CP-NR/release_e.asp?bgid=901&andor1=bg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110218105246/http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/lhn-nhs/intro_e.asp to http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/lhn-nhs/intro_e.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006084833/http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/r/system-reseau/sec1/sites-lieux9.aspx to http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/r/system-reseau/sec1/sites-lieux9.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006085714/http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/r/system-reseau/sec5/sites-lieux60.aspx to http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/r/system-reseau/sec5/sites-lieux60.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006085802/http://www.pc.gc.ca/clmhc-hsmbc/plaques/plaques1_e.asp to http://www.pc.gc.ca/clmhc-hsmbc/plaques/plaques1_e.asp
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) 21:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Historic Sites of Canada. 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/20131017114426/http://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/cp-nr/release_e.asp?bgid=1601&andor1=bg to http://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/cp-nr/release_e.asp?bgid=1601&andor1=bg
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) 20:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: There's no doubt the Historic Sites and Monuments Board deserves a section in this article, but probably also an article in its own right. There, a fuller discussion of its history and development could be expanded upon, as well as a list of its chairs. It would be an ideal place for the list that CWGroat recently contributed, as well as a list of past and current members, if desired, those ministers it advised, and maybe significant designations that chart expanding ideas of what the board has deemed nationally important. Yoho2001 (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  HSMB - new section? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Vimy Ridge Monument at Twilight.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

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 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion