Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Washington, D.C.

message: I guess I don't understand why it's been done this way.  It doesn't encourage creating the necessary articles. dm 03:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it does make a better encyclopedia article in the short term. In the longer term, I fully agree that we want to encourage editors to take and/or upload appropriate photos to properly illustrate the landmark site itself, and to write the articles to clear redlinks as necessary. Where one strikes the balance between those two imperatives is a judgment call. I tend to prefer incuding the images of the significant person, who is often the actual target of the historical commemoration.  -Ipoellet 19:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would prefer that the people photos were NOT added.  There are HABS photos available for many of the sites, which should be identified, edited (they usually need cropping), and uploaded instead.  Having the people photos gummies that process up.  Also, if the people photos are really useful, they should be added to the articles on the sites instead, or at least first.  (I think sometimes but not always would they add.) The list of NHLs should include small images only of pics that are available in larger form in the  articles that they index.  If there is not yet at least a stub article on the NHL in question, then spend your time creating one! doncram (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: photos of people for buildings which dont have articles?

message: A process outside of WP:NRHP has started which would change wordings to "Washington, D.C." from what has been practice in WP:NRHP "the District of Columbia".
See Historic Places in the District of Columbia Proposal in progress to change away from " Category:Registered Historic Places in the District of Columbia", and similar change on Category:Images in the District of Columbia
This got stirred up by proposal to create Category:National Historic Landmarks in the District of Columbia, which is now suggested to be "in Washington, D.C." instead.
Assuming these go through, then I predict that the current titles of list-articles List of Registered Historic Places in the District of Columbia and List of National Historic Landmarks in the District of Columbia would also be changed.
If you care about this, participate by discussing here on the talk page of WP:NRHP if you like, but especially by voting or commenting in the category change process. doncram (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Process moving to switch to "Washington, D.C." usage rather than "District of Columbia"

message: I am going to begin fixing the 'descriptions' of these sites, which, frankly, are so obvious as to be useless.  Explaining that a house named for an individual is maybe the home of that individual is not helpful.  Even less so is the description of Tudor Place as a 'place'. That's just dumb.
Dpenn89 (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Descriptions

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 22:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress