Talk:Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home

message: Does anyone know the status of this proposed NHS? I am going to be expanding this article soon and adding photos I took. I found this article: () which implies that it may not. Anything out there more recent? I am going to move the page when I expand it, if this isn't a NHS yet it probably won't be anytime soon, unless someone has some reliable conflicting info. IvoShandor 05:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay here goes. The site was dedicated as a National Historic Site in June 2002 (), six months later the Department of the Interior (which was authorized to purchase the home, offered $420,000 for it, the preservationists said it was worth more than six times as much. (). The last article says the government had until February 3, 2003 to purchase the home. My visit to Dixon about two weeks ago gave no indication that the home was owned by the federal government or operated by the National Park Service. IvoShandor 14:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So this place is in kind of a gray area, it has been designated a NHS but its handover is incomplete. IvoShandor 14:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion and move

message: Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home National Historic Site → Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home — It's a proposed National Historic Site and although it is going to be, it isn't yet. Plus, that's an awfully long title for a Wiki article. I tried moving the page, but it wouldn't let me move it, thus here I am. —Happyme22 02:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 naming conventions.
*Support.  Doesn't need overly long name for disambiguation or anything else.  Try picking a category that it might belong in, such as :Category:National Historic Landmarks of the United States, and the entries there don't all end in "National Historic Landmark".  Gene Nygaard 16:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment.  If you are talking about Longfellow National Historic Site it makes sense as the simplest way to disambiguate, since Longfellow can apply to many other things.  We don't need a ridiculously long article name to disambiguate Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home from other Wikipedia articles, however. There is no disambiguation page at that target. There are, in fact, a number of U.S. National Historic Sites which do not now have that in their article names.  Gene Nygaard 19:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, whatever the most common name is then. I hear both, so whichever probably works, with a redirect from either one. Discussion is kind of pointless I suppose anyway, given that. Just move it and be done with it. IvoShandor 19:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a national historic site, that's great; we can be sure to definetly mention that in the lead section, but the title of the article is ridiculously long. I agree with Ivo: move it and be done. Happyme22 00:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am planning to work on this article soon, I have been researching the status of it, that's the only reason I knew anything about it, I tried to move the page. We will need an admin to intervene, it appears to be a redirect. IvoShandor 00:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have notified an admin, anyone who comes along before that would be great. IvoShandor 00:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
National Historic Site designation is far more important than National Historic Landmark designation, just FY. IvoShandor 18:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

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 naming conventions.
*Support.  Doesn't need overly long name for disambiguation or anything else.  Try picking a category that it might belong in, such as :Category:National Historic Landmarks of the United States, and the entries there don't all end in "National Historic Landmark".  Gene Nygaard 16:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment.  If you are talking about Longfellow National Historic Site it makes sense as the simplest way to disambiguate, since Longfellow can apply to many other things.  We don't need a ridiculously long article name to disambiguate Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home from other Wikipedia articles, however. There is no disambiguation page at that target. There are, in fact, a number of U.S. National Historic Sites which do not now have that in their article names.  Gene Nygaard 19:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, whatever the most common name is then. I hear both, so whichever probably works, with a redirect from either one. Discussion is kind of pointless I suppose anyway, given that. Just move it and be done with it. IvoShandor 19:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a national historic site, that's great; we can be sure to definetly mention that in the lead section, but the title of the article is ridiculously long. I agree with Ivo: move it and be done. Happyme22 00:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am planning to work on this article soon, I have been researching the status of it, that's the only reason I knew anything about it, I tried to move the page. We will need an admin to intervene, it appears to be a redirect. IvoShandor 00:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have notified an admin, anyone who comes along before that would be great. IvoShandor 00:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
National Historic Site designation is far more important than National Historic Landmark designation, just FY. IvoShandor 18:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Tourmaker (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from director

message: I think the info box should be changed to , there is no evidence that this is going to become an NHS. The law stipulates that it has to be acquired by Interior before it becomes a National Historic Site. The evidence I cited in the topic a couple threads above combined with the comment at the top of this page leads me to believe that this site will never become an actual National Historic Site, despite having been dedicated as such. Unfortunate to be sure, but since it's been almost seven years since the initial declaration, and nothing has developed, I think, for the sake of accuracy the infobox should be changed. If anyone can find any evidence that this is still going to happen, I withdraw my comment. But I don't think it exists. --IvoShandor (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even then, I'd think the application of the National Park box would be significantly overboard anyway (the listing as "protected landscape/seascape" sounds, quite honestly, rather preposterous). Circeus (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, its a bit much, but I guess its technically correct, don't ask me, that's the Protected Areas WikiProject. :-) But, yeah, as I was saying I don't think its becoming an NHS anytime soon, 7 years out and still nothing, methinks its time to switch the box. --IvoShandor (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: *General: NRHP nom
*National Historic Site: CBS article (law passed and signed, pretty informative), Berkley Daily Planet (passes House), THOMAS info on law, NY Times brief (project in jeopardy -2003), Another NYT brief (NPS offer rejected 2003), Trib article (opposition), NPS 04 budget request (hmm), LA Times article
*Statue:
*Restoration/History: , , 
*Interpretive/Reagan at the house: , , , , , ,
--IvoShandor (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for expansion

message: This site is not administrated by the NPS in any way, and cannot be an NHS unless it is purchased by the Dept of Interior, so I removed the category.--IvoShandor (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: National park cat