Talk:List of national monuments of the United States

message: Shouldn't Mt. Rushmore be listed here?
:No, it is not a National Monument, it is a National Memorial. --Holderca1 talk 15:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mount Rushmore 

message: I would have expected a talk message before a bold rename...  dm (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Radiojon's rename was a bit bold, and i have reverted it.  "National Monument" is a proper noun phrase, and in my view it is the appropriate usage for this article about official National Monuments of the United States.  Radiojon's edits did add value particularly by adding table rows for the 3 new NMs, but the edits also made questionable changes without discussion, so I went ahead and reverted and then restored the new table rows.  Thanks Radiojon!  Hopefully we can further discuss here as needed. doncram (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On that note, shouldn't the reference to national monuments in the first sentence be capitalized too? I could argue either way and am not sure. ~ ωαdεstεr16♣kiss mei'm Irish♣ 03:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  why the rename to lower case? 

message: In the NHL articles such as List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City, names are sorted by last name rather than a pure alphabetical sort as done here.  I dont really care which, I'm just curious if anyone else feels they should be the same. dm (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean to sort Booker T. Washington as Washington, Booker T.? I disagree with that. If alphabetizing the name of the person then sure, but the name of the monument is Booker T. Washington National Monument. Reywas92Talk 01:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not suggesting changing the name, but merely its spot in the list.  Take a look at the NHL in NYC for Hamilton Fish's house for an example... dm (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not right for this list, and I would consider it wrong for the NHL list. At least these official sources list them by monument name, regardless of personal name:  . Reywas92Talk 21:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented in the current FLC discussion about this subject.  While i understand where dm is coming from (working on NHL and NRHP lists, where using lastname order seems to be better), I am okay with deferring to Reywas92's judgment / preference here where there are relatively few person names in the list. doncram (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the ordering of this list is from when I put it into the table form back in September.   I'm fine with leaving it alone, it's just something I noticed. dm (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good then. I do believe in standardization, but NMs are separate from NHLs, so they do no need to be the same. Reywas92Talk 02:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering of peoples names 

message: It would help the article to say how many of the National Monuments are historic sites listed on the NRHP and perhaps also NHL-designated, like the African Burial Ground one is.  Towards establishing that, I started a listing of those at Talk:List of national monuments of the United States/NRHPs. doncram (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe all NMs (or maybe it's just NPS areas) are automatically NRHPs. I don't know how many are NHLs; if we can find a good number it can be mentioned, though that isn't exactly the most relevant thing here. Reywas92Talk 02:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, not the case.  Not all NMs, not all NPS areas, are NRHP-listed, only the ones that meet the specific historic criteria for the NRHP program.  I am thinking the count of NRHP-listed ones provides a factual way to add a statement about how many are listed for historical reasons, comparable to the statement "Fifty-four national monuments protect places of natural significance...".  Watch the linked subpage listing, we can sort this out there.  Mildly confusing perhaps is that some NMs contain individual buildings or sets of NPS structures that are NRHP-listed, while the NM is not. doncram (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then. I have no problem with a few sentences about NRHPs/NHLs in the list, but that isn't directly relevant to NMs. I'm not as interested in NRHPs as you are, so I invite you to add what you like. Reywas92Talk 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: How many, which are NRHP-listed

message: I'm as guilty of this as anyone, but as I go through the underlying articles, I'm noticing that many of the pictures have not made their way back to the monument articles themselves. dm (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! Many individual NM articles are not very good, but there's too many! I could do a little, though I've actually been to only 2 of the 100.  Reywas92Talk 02:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem for the underlying articles is that many use the Protected areas infobox from when there was less understanding of what Protected areas mean, exactly, and wp:NRHP did not yet exist.  Some include composed IUCN categories that are simply wrong guesses.  Perhaps we could get others help for a cleanup drive on these, replacing the PAREAS infobox by the NRHP infobox for the non-natural sites? doncram (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've fixed the first 7 articles (at least I think its the first 7 since the numbers are gone).  I'll keep going if one of you start at the end... dm (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dont forget to improve the underlying articles 

message: Relating to my comments in the FLC, I'm trying some alternative ways to set up the table by agency at Talk:List of national monuments of the United States/AgencyTable. doncram (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think version 3 there is potentially better, tho it needs some cleanup. doncram (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they are a little clearer. I'll take a better look soon. Reywas92Talk 02:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  table by agency 

message: Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad NM was created in 2013 as an NPS unit. In 2014, parts of it were redesignated a NHP. The very limited NPS lands which had been acquired were transferred to the new NHP, with additional lands authorized to accrue to the NHP. So where does this leave the 'phantom' National Monument? The 2014 legislation did not abolish it, and boundaries are still authorized. So does it revert to an 'authorized but not established' monument, and therefore not in the count? This list shows it under FWS, but I have not seen sources which indicate a transfer from NPS to FWS was given. Yoho2001 (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Any further information on this? It's still not clear to me what the status of the NM is. Is it now wholly a FWS NM? Does the new NHP mean there will be transfers from within the NM to the NHP? Is either unit co-managed by NPS and FWS? Yoho2001 (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harriet Tubman UGRR NM 

message: If these two sections were added to the page, it would give a comprehensive overview of monuments that once were, their disposition, and ones which are proposed or authorized. For proposed ones, a source would be a necessity. This would alert users to what might be coming down the pike. Adding these would be consistent with the Disbanded and Authorized sections at List of areas in the United States National Park System. Yoho2001 (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abolished and Authorized/Proposed NMs 

message: I have added a listing for the Military Working Dog Teams National Monument, however I am unsure how to add it to the total number of national monuments chart.  The NM is owned by the Department of Defense, and maintained by the John Burnam Memorial Foundation.  Would the agency therefore be the JBMF with the DoD as the Department?. Akjayintx (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this listing; the act does not define that statue as a National Monument under the definition of the Antiquities Act, and it doesn't appear that any other sources consider it to be a National Monument in the context of this list. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that NorthBySouthBaranof and Terpsichore99 are attempting to impose a degree of consistency on the "national monument" designation that doesn't exist IRL. Congress has created a large number of national monuments without reference to the Antiquities Act, simply using the same term for what is a different beast legally and politically. As we easily see from the list, the designation covers areas running the gamut from gigantic wilderness areas to tiny historic sites, whether they were legislated by Congress or proclaimed by the President. Governance of the national monuments (as defined by which agency has jurisdiction) is also diverse, and the working dogs monument is unique in this respect as well. There is no one logical category of protected areas that neatly matches up to the national monument designation, and so if Congress designates a memorial statue as a national monument then there's no way to say that's "wrong". You may feel (as I do - yes, it grates on me too) that it "makes no sense" for a memorial statue to bear the national monument designation, or that that nomenclature reasonably ought to be restricted to the politico-legal case of Antiquities Act areas, but the situation we've got is that if Congress says the working dogs memorial is a "national monument", then that's what it is. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a consistency: we adhere to reliable sources, such as this one, which do not include this statue as a Congressionally-designated national monument for the purposes of this article. But the law is weirdly ambiguous, poorly drafted and ultimately I don't think it really matters one way or the other enough to make a federal case out of it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Working Dog Teams NM added 

message: Since this is a featured list, I wanted to put this question on the talk page first. What do people think about including former national monuments that may have been incorporated into larger national parks or redesignated as something other than a national monument? Personally, I think it would provide a little more context to how much cross-over there is between designations, the delineation of power between the Executive and Legislative branches, and provide history while maintaining a list format that doesn't need to explicitly state these things. NPS has a website here that shows the list of current and former monuments. Curoi (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The monuments listed on that web site are only those designated under the Antiquities Act. It seems to exclude those that were designated by Congressional action. I am not opposed to your suggestion, but I wonder if some of the things you're trying to address (esp. separation of powers) would be better handled in the Antiquities Act article. — Ipoellet (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I noticed that about the Antiquities Act, however, I found another source that lays out a more detailed list that includes monuments established by Congress as well. I wouldn't necessarily cite the source here but it does lead to all the other former monuments, all of which already are on Wikipedia. I've already started creating a list that is subsection of my User page List of former National Monuments of the United States. Suggestions are welcome but I decided to drop the photos so that current monuments take priority visually. I also plan on dropping the 'New Name' column and just have the former monument name link to the new designation directly. Obviously, the dates and even locations should be verified and filled in. The description column could be changed to notes that provide information about the redesignation, incorporation, or disbandment. Curoi»Talk 19:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

text: I disagree considering that list is for NPS only and does not include former national monuments that were administered by other agencies like BLM, USFS, or FWS. A complete former list of national monuments either on this page or another page can't be exclusive to NPS considering this page is not either (maybe I'm wrong about this and that's why you said 'incorrect'?). If that's the case, there could be a workaround to pair down the table to exclude photos or other unimportant information. The table could also be made collapsible. Thoughts? Curoi (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: By incorrect, I mean that many sites were created as NMs just because the president could do that on his own, with congress later correcting it to a more pertinent designation. Without anything else in common, the list isn't covering something particularly coherent: mostly national parks originally created under antiquities, with a handful of NHPs and a few now-local sites. That main areas list would work since most of the now-non-NPS sites were NPS while they were NMs. The antiquities act article should also work since virtually all of these were originally made by the president. I feel this page is big enough and should focus on the current ones, and a collapsed table is not a good solution. Reywas92Talk 22:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of see your point, however, there are more than a couple former NMs that were not redesignated NPs or NHPs. Many became preserves, historical sites, parkways, memorials, reincorporated into national forests, turned over to states or municipalities etc. I counted ~22 that were not specifically NPs or NHPs and (probably more to your point) about 12 that are no longer or never were NPS areas. In addition, at least 2 of the former national monuments were not created using the Presidential powers granted under the Antiquities Act: Patrick Henry and Ackia Battlefield. If you cross-reference my User page list with the NPS Antiquities Act list, you may find more. Given the fact that so many NMs are transformed into other units within NPS and the probability that some will be deauthorized at some point in the future since that's already happened, I think they deserve to be listed together comprehensively. If all else, maybe there should just be a separate page for former national monuments rather than a category list that isn't as complete or engaging or the Antiquities Act article, which shouldn't be a list and is also not all encompassing. If it can be corroborated that all of them were formerly managed by NPS than they could go on the NP areas list but I'm not convinced all of them were NPS managed. The very fact that the Antiquities Act is used by presidents to set aside land that would not otherwise be set-aside as a NM means a list of former NMs gives the reader more insight into what a NM actual is or intended to be: like I mentioned before, a little more context to the reader without explicitly saying so. I just think there are too many exceptions to the above arguments for not keeping them all together. Curoi (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say keep making the table then, maybe a separate article would be best, though avoid duplicative content like park descriptions. I did find that at least now-BLM Fossil Cycad was NPS-managed at the time it was a monument, but most of the others have short articles that don't give details about their history. Reywas92Talk 20:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former National Monuments? 

message: User:Kfc 930 - are you planning to complete the "President" names column in the table you created about a week ago, and provide some references? This list is supposed to be a "featured" list after all. The NPS monument acres can be sourced from the same ref in the NP list article (ref), but the many other monuments managed by the BLM, USFS, etc. also need listed sources. Anyway, the acres could/should have been added in the original table, along with visitation counts if someone has the time (the NP list fits all that in each table row). Most of the other columns in the new table are either not very useful ("Land/water" is fairly obvious after reading the names, and "State area rank (% x 1000)"?) or just duplicate the main table (locations and dates). The president names could be a put in a separate table, or as prefixes in the description column of the main table (to make the column sortable), or just a separate bulleted list: prez - monuments. Any of those options seems better than a large, second table. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed this in my watchlist, but this was a poor addition. Why Kfc 930 decided to duplicate so much material is beyond me. I also have no idea what "State area rank" is supposed to mean, why it's meaningful, and why it's x1000. I oppose including the presidents in general (beyond the summary in the lead) because it obscures the fact that many NMs were created by Congress (e.g. during Reagan's presidency) and many that presidents did make have been redesignated – the date provides enough information. I can help with putting sourced areas in the main table this week. Reywas92Talk 01:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks User:Brian W. Schaller, you make constructive points. This table was in response to the Sep 2015 request by Anon to add sizes of monuments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_National_Monuments_of_the_United_States#Area). It's separate because wide wikipedia tables do not always show up well for me, especially on mobile devices. Wikipedia does not appear to have the option to collapse columns. Yes, I had meant to complete the presidents, but after these comments I think a better addition would be a bulleted list by "designator" (or something like that) either the president or the session of U.S. Congress, which is more what I was aiming for. I disagree with User:Reywas92 though that the dates provide enough information, as I never bothered to memorize the full list of dates each U.S. president was in office. I curated the acreage from the individual pages, but support using primary sources for this instead. The percentage of state area column seems like it was very, very confusing. It was a second metric of size based on state area where 1000=1% of the state's area, since 1000 acres in RI (~0.1%) would be different then in AK (~0.0002%). It was x1000 because people seem to do better with larger numbers than fractions/proportions less than 1. Suggested action list:
*Revert edits (done. I've since learned some changes I made were incorrect)
*Add bulleted list of presidents/sessions of congress and which monuments they designated
*Add 2 columns, acreage (ha? km2, mi2?), and annual visits along with references to main list
Thoughts?
Edit: forgot to sign
Kfc 930 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Area can be done in one column as N acres (X km2) (see format in List of national parks of the United States). The references for that and visitation (for NPS sites) can also be found in that article. I still don't think we need details on presidents. This is a list of current monuments, not a list of presidents by monuments created, and that information is not as relevant as the descriptions and data. Perhaps it could go on National Monument (United States) or Antiquities Act, which already has this definitive source in the external links section. Thanks for your effort, sorry for the criticism. Reywas92Talk 06:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't realize so many monuments were designated by Congress. Probably best to skip that info as most readers wouldn't care which session of Congress designated which monument, or place that info in one of those other articles just mentioned. Adding acreage and visitation numbers is enough for this article. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Brian W. Schaller: I have multiple acreage columns so you can review first if you'd like before adding in the column to this page. Sometimes there seem to be discrepancies between the individual wiki pages and the public reports. The columns on my sandbox were poorly labeled, hopefully the descriptions there are better now. Not planning on using Johnston's Archive on this page - I included it in my sandbox to try to resolve discrepancies, but it is probably not useful because of the reasons you mentioned. If the "Area (2017)" column appears correct to you I'll add it to this page between "Date established" and "Description," otherwise I can make changes first. Kfc 930 (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Kfc 930: Good job. Just double-checked the acres against the refs (which all look reliable btw, though not sure why the .edu site is used for several proclamations - are those not available on whitehouse.gov anymore?) and found just 1 very minor discrepancy: White Sands NM fractional acreage is .55 in the ref (so, the table entry's off by just .3 acres). When you copy it all over, it's better to not copy the refs for each entry - specifically, the NPS, BLM, FS & FWS refs - but instead place them in the column header, with refs for the few unusual ones right by their acreage figures, with footnotes if necessary. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New table with acreage 

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) 19:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The number 0.4 acres (0.002 km2) seems too low for what once was a town. And if true, which building(s) are included there? Retired electrician (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pullman: sources for acreage?