Talk:National Register of Historic Places/Archive 1

message: This will be the talk thread that will be archived with the nifty template when we finish here. Add new topic as they are needed, use a third level headline ===headline=== so that all entires appear under the heading of our collaboration. Thanks. IvoShandor 07:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *A bit too wordy and confusing. I will look for other stuff and correct. Anyone know what that is getting at? IvoShandor 07:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone know what qualifies as a "historic area adminstered by the National Park Service? Landmarks, Register, Historic Areas, Battlefields, what else is out there? I'll look it up, though if you know say so, I have been looking up a lot of stuff lately and have much competing information swirling around my head. IvoShandor 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the above. I added the project banners to all the existing articles that were covered, ages ago. National Natural Landmark don't apply, though. It seems to be anything related to people. Built by people, fought on by people, etc.
===Images===
We have only one image. We need to brainstorm, if we can't get a picture of the building the NRHP is administered from, and then even if we can (if it exists in its own right), we need to think about ways of illustrating this article that doesn't involve photos of listed places. IvoShandor 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a few ideas floating around. The "Types of Properties" section may be the only one that could get away with using listed places as illustrations without being too cliche. Maybe the "Special PReservation stuff too. I don't really know how to the illustrate the "listed properties" section, without resorting to, well, listed properties, which is just lame. We must think on this. IvoShandor 05:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Intro reworked and formatted, should conform to WP:LEAD now, haven't checked length specifically but it seems to be right. Check it if you have a chance. IvoShandor 08:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: With my last expansion 33kb long, may be time to seriously think about how to approach the summary style for this article. IvoShandor 05:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have again reorganized it, I like it better. I have begun to copy edit my additions along with whatever text was there, which I blurred into the rest of article. It barely resembles its former self (of just days ago). I still want to find out what pushed the development of the Register, of which I found some intriguing info on the NPS' "MISSION 66" which culminated with the passage of the NHPA of 1966. The history section needs a bit of beefing up but through about 1980 its pretty solid, this is probably going to need its own article and a good summary before it goes beyond GA (yeah FA, one day, why not). The Types of Properties section could eventually asplode off the page as well, notice only two of the specialty properties have any in depth info, and not much at that. At least a couple of those other topics (especially designed historic landscapes (which writing on is pretty prolific from what I see)). The criticism section will probably need some expansion as there are a couple of other aspects which have been heavily criticized in the academic world, enough to have garnered published, peer reviewed responses anyway. Some other stuff to consider includes funding, how much of the DOI budget goes to the NPS, to the NRHP? Probably a glance at the DOI Appropriations Bill for 07 will reveal this information. All for now. IvoShandor 06:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the history page in user space. Right now it is simply the same as the section  here. Before I go live with the History page I plan to expand it, tonight. Then I will pare down the section here and make it more of an overall summary, more like 5 or six shorter paragraphs instead of the lengthy and detailed rant that I have here now. : ) IvoShandor 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am having trouble coming up with a good way to split up the Listed properties section per WP:SUMMARY, any ideas appreciated. IvoShandor 12:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Main article History of the National Register of Historic Places is now up, History section trimmed accordingly. Also I have Property types (National Register of Historic Places) in my user space, currently just a reflection of the section here, with expansion it can go live and the section here can be trimmed , like with the history section. IvoShandor 01:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: For the "History" section, and main article (now live btw and submitted to DYK) a good composite of estimates from various eras should be utilized, I have already started this but it would be nice to have, at least, estimates from each decade. IvoShandor 01:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Some people count things, I just talk to myself. IvoShandor 12:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And endeavor to bring about a physical manifestation of Gozer . . . 12:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I did shorten it some, feel free to further trim it where necessary. : )IvoShandor 18:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Basically, I am going to halt the major expansions for now, though I may add a bit in the criticism section, pending peer comments. IvoShandor 04:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably assess this B class, A if the NRHP had that type of review...speaking of . . IvoShandor 04:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, working on this, the lead will be completely rewritten. The article does clarify (the one million number includes all structures within historic districts too). IvoShandor 06:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check it out now, let me know. IvoShandor 04:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see the changes. It's much clearer now. :) —Lowellian (reply) 00:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NRHP Project collaboration

message: We have only one image. We need to brainstorm, if we can't get a picture of the building the NRHP is administered from, and then even if we can (if it exists in its own right), we need to think about ways of illustrating this article that doesn't involve photos of listed places. IvoShandor 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a few ideas floating around. The "Types of Properties" section may be the only one that could get away with using listed places as illustrations without being too cliche. Maybe the "Special PReservation stuff too. I don't really know how to the illustrate the "listed properties" section, without resorting to, well, listed properties, which is just lame. We must think on this. IvoShandor 05:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: *For the "History" section: Ernest Connally - first director of OAHP.IvoShandor 05:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a few ideas floating around. The "Types of Properties" section may be the only one that could get away with using listed places as illustrations without being too cliche. Maybe the "Special PReservation stuff too. I don't really know how to the illustrate the "listed properties" section, without resorting to, well, listed properties, which is just lame. We must think on this. IvoShandor 05:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideas/requests

message: This article has over 11,500 incoming links, all namespaces, the majority are in the main namespace. Just FYI. IvoShandor 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI

message: The lead should conform to WP:LEAD and represent a summary of the rest of the article, no info should be found only in the lead. I may take a stab at it later, feel free though. IvoShandor 07:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Intro reworked and formatted, should conform to WP:LEAD now, haven't checked length specifically but it seems to be right. Check it if you have a chance. IvoShandor 08:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: I have heavily expanded the article as well as tentatively reorganized. I don't think the current organization will stand, mainly because it could be better and some stuff will be added. Right now I am wondering to what extent we should utilize WP:SUMMARY for this article. Should we have main articles like History of the National Register of Historic Places. The reason I wonder is because the more research I do the more I am finding worthy of inclusion. For instance, at a glance the "criteria" don't seem to merit their own article nor even section but deeper research reveals that these criteria are applied in a host of different ways and have, indeed, much like the Wiki, evolved over time. What does anyone and everyone think? IvoShandor 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With my last expansion 33kb long, may be time to seriously think about how to approach the summary style for this article. IvoShandor 05:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have again reorganized it, I like it better. I have begun to copy edit my additions along with whatever text was there, which I blurred into the rest of article. It barely resembles its former self (of just days ago). I still want to find out what pushed the development of the Register, of which I found some intriguing info on the NPS' "MISSION 66" which culminated with the passage of the NHPA of 1966. The history section needs a bit of beefing up but through about 1980 its pretty solid, this is probably going to need its own article and a good summary before it goes beyond GA (yeah FA, one day, why not). The Types of Properties section could eventually asplode off the page as well, notice only two of the specialty properties have any in depth info, and not much at that. At least a couple of those other topics (especially designed historic landscapes (which writing on is pretty prolific from what I see)). The criticism section will probably need some expansion as there are a couple of other aspects which have been heavily criticized in the academic world, enough to have garnered published, peer reviewed responses anyway. Some other stuff to consider includes funding, how much of the DOI budget goes to the NPS, to the NRHP? Probably a glance at the DOI Appropriations Bill for 07 will reveal this information. All for now. IvoShandor 06:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the history page in user space. Right now it is simply the same as the section  here. Before I go live with the History page I plan to expand it, tonight. Then I will pare down the section here and make it more of an overall summary, more like 5 or six shorter paragraphs instead of the lengthy and detailed rant that I have here now. : ) IvoShandor 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am having trouble coming up with a good way to split up the Listed properties section per WP:SUMMARY, any ideas appreciated. IvoShandor 12:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: A list, yeah, that's right a list. ; )
*Impetus: Who spurred the creation of the NRHP? Why?
*History: More detail for the period 1975 to present is needed {I am currently at work on this) IvoShandor 21:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Main article History of the National Register of Historic Places is now up, History section trimmed accordingly. Also I have Property types (National Register of Historic Places) in my user space, currently just a reflection of the section here, with expansion it can go live and the section here can be trimmed , like with the history section. IvoShandor 01:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needed topics for inclusion

message: I know it doesn't seem that there are that many wikilinks. But I am highly satisfied that those that do exist (and those uncreated as of now) add significantly to the context of the article, which is why some terms that may seem like they should be linked aren't, such as Ronald Reagan. If you see any glaring omissions add them, otherwise I might suggest discussing it here first. : ) Awesome. IvoShandor 21:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikilinks

message: I am beginning to think that no one really knows, at any given moment, how many properties are actually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The best, I think, that we can do is come up with the most recent and accurate estimates and then also figure out a recent average of new listings per week/year/month, whatever. We must also keep in mind that as properties are demolished or otherwise destroyed they are delisted. IvoShandor 01:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the "History" section, and main article (now live btw and submitted to DYK) a good composite of estimates from various eras should be utilized, I have already started this but it would be nice to have, at least, estimates from each decade. IvoShandor 01:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people count things, I just talk to myself. IvoShandor 12:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And endeavor to bring about a physical manifestation of Gozer . . . 12:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: This section might be shortened to a general discussion, now that there's a Main page for History. — Dogears 18:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did shorten it some, feel free to further trim it where necessary. : )IvoShandor 18:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History 

message: I am opening a peer review for broader perspective. It will probably be open the remainder of the collaboration and beyond. Feel free to comment. IvoShandor 09:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, I am going to halt the major expansions for now, though I may add a bit in the criticism section, pending peer comments. IvoShandor 04:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably assess this B class, A if the NRHP had that type of review...speaking of . . IvoShandor 04:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: I didn't read the article, and maybe this is clarified in the article itself, but the lead by itself contains two seemingly contradictory statements:
# "As of 2007, the list includes more than 80,000 entries, including many icons of American culture, history, engineering, and architecture."
# "As of 1998, there were over one million buildings, sites and structures listed on the Register - including historic districts and individually listed buildings - and each year an additional 30,000 are added."
So which is it? More than 80,000, or the much larger figure of more than a million? Even if the article itself clarifies this point and resolves these two statements to make them make sense, the lead needs to be changed so that by itself it does not seem contradictory. —Lowellian (reply) 01:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, working on this, the lead will be completely rewritten. The article does clarify (the one million number includes all structures within historic districts too). IvoShandor 06:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check it out now, let me know. IvoShandor 04:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see the changes. It's much clearer now. :) —Lowellian (reply) 00:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with intro

message: I have nominated this for GA, it will be an opportunity for more feedback as I continue the push toward FA for this most important article. IvoShandor 04:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nom

message: I have reviewed the article and believe it meets criteria at WP:WIAGA. I could find overall, very little to improve though I do have a few suggestions. 
* overall the article seems very technical, like some passages were obviosuly a direct cut of the original text, not that I can substantiate the claim but the article does have a very technical, drawn out length. Considering this article is long, I would suggest that experienced editors go over and attempt to rewrite/make more concise some of the passages.
* the lead didnt exactly make me go wow or anything - not that it should but I just felt that maybe a few examples of some of the more famous places on the register would give it a bit more depth. More over, the lead at the moment seems a bit technical. Anyway thats just a thought.
* the section Multiple Property Submission felt a bit technical as well, wordy etc - perhaps this could be made more concise?
Other than that everything else fine - images ok, article broad enough etc. Good work to all those who contributed.LordHarris 00:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concerns are something I, and others, have been struggling with. I don't know if I can address them effectively, however, as I have attempted to in the past. I will try to enlist the help of some of the others at the NRHP project. Thanks again LordHarris. IvoShandor 06:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA pass

message: I added "some" before "National Monument" in the article, with an explanatory footnote.  Only NMs that are historical in character and administered by the NPS are automatically listed on the Register.  Natural NMs, such as Buck Island Reef National Monument are not listed, even though they are NPS sites.  Likewise, historical NMs such as President Lincoln and Soldiers' Home National Monument are not administratively listed on the Register, if they are not NPS sites (although that particular NM is part of a prior NR listing, but it was not automatically added as a separate listing). — Eoghanacht talk 16:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Monument note 

message: Regarding the request for "an image of the building the NRHP is adminstrated from, provided they have their own building."  From what I've found they're located at 1201 Eye St., NW in D.C.  This is not their own building; in a brief search I found other National Park Service programs, some folks from the Dept of the Interior and a consulting firm.  Xstolix 14:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what they told me in an email too, so I think you got the building. It's probably not even worth adding but if you have a pic feel free to add it, at some point I will be working on this article again and going for FA. IvoShandor 19:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on To Do List picture request 

message: I deleted the www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com from External Links, as it looks as if they are trying to make money by presenting themselves as the official US government website.  It's misleading and language on the site is semi-literate. --Parkwells 18:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commercial site trying to look like the real thing

message: In other articles I've noticed editors making errors by listing the above commercial site as an External Link.  This is NOT the Official Website of the National Register of Historic Places (http://www.nps.gov/nr/), which is run by the National Park Service and Federal government. It makes it look as if Wikipedia doesn't know the difference.  The commercial site is trying to make money by offering a tie-in linked to an official government symbol.
I don't know if there is some "Find" copy editing that can be done, but this might be a widespread problem. --Parkwells 19:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed it occasionally as well, I remove it where I see it. I dont think nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com is reliable enough to be used for a source, they still have long demolished sites listed and though there are errors in the NRIS database, they are fewer than the NRHP.com commercial site that sees a lot of link traffic. IvoShandor 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your assessment of the site as "trying to make money of a tie in" or whatever is incorrect, I don't see a single ad anywhere in that site, never have. There isn't anything wrong with including the site as an external link, it was clearly marked as unofficial. Please offer some proof of your accusations or I will revert your change. IvoShandor 23:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So in summary, I remove it as a source, but your implying this is a spam link, I see no evidence of this. IvoShandor 23:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I found one commercial link, "Top ten Inns" in lieu of travel information. I still don't think this qualifies it as a spam site, and I am wondering what your issue with this is. IvoShandor 23:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never seemed like a spam site to me. No pop-ups, an ad on a page here and there, doesn't seem like a problem. The information on it has always appeared to be accurate, if not updated. But the official site doesn't add the newer listings into the general database, so they're not always great at updating either. Also seems to be the only place where specific historic district info (acreage, # of buildings, etc) is listed. I've not found that even on the official gov't site. I use it as a reference, actually, b/c it goes to a specific page. You can't direct link to an entry on the official site, at least not so far as I've found. My two cents. -Ebyabe 23:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, no links directly to the listing on the official site. Perhaps my references removal is a bit of conclusion jumping on my part. I should say I really only do it with Illinois because the SHPO has all those little details, ref number, acerage etc, listed for Illinois. IvoShandor 23:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editors Using Commercial Site Wanna-be rather than Official Website

message: Where did the 30k added per year thing in the lead come from? I looked for it later in the article, but didn't see it mentioned or referenced. Also, the criticism section lists a few critics and uses a block quote for one of them, but doesn't say who the critics are, outside of the names, or why the reader should trust their opinions / criticism. I don't need a full biography, but they have no wiki-links on them so I think they need a small intro, like Stephen Mikesell, a noted blah blah blah holding a PhD in blah says.... or something more reader friendly. --Dual Freq 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger that, thanks for the feedback Dual, as always you are most helpful. I didn't realize the 30K didn't have a ref but its one of those used already so it'll be easy to add. IvoShandor 06:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Weekly Update  goes back 10 years. Isn't there a way to send a bot or something to count all the properties listed during that time period(provided they haven't been removed) and create an average?Einbierbitte 17:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a great idea but I have no clue about such things. IvoShandor 19:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, it seems odd that the only criticisms cited are 20 years old. There may be more recent issues and/or criticism related to administration of the program. --Parkwells 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *Copyeditors (please sign below if you give this a good copy edit, or even a partial one, please note the sections you edited)
* Lead: Is it clear, and is it a good summary?
* Look for sneaky POV descriptors.
IvoShandor 07:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple questions 

message: This is a compilation checklist from the peer review and other commenters. It's easier to add here than the to-do list because the concerns are rather specific. Most of this will need to be clarified before FA. 
*Double check to see if you need to be so specific in some sections (particularly incentives and nominations.
*Thoroughly copyedit this article for grammar, typos, jargon and, most importantly, for flow.
:*Copyeditors (please sign below if you give this a good copy edit, or even a partial one, please note the sections you edited)
* Lead: Is it clear, and is it a good summary?
* Look for sneaky POV descriptors.
IvoShandor 07:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff to do

message: * Impetus
* Budget
* Plaques
* Grants
* Structure
* Updated Numbers
I don't think we should think about FA until this stuff is added and any kinks noted elsewhere on this page are also worked out. I do think we will easily get GA, maybe a few minor problems but nothing an on hold period wouldn't be able to address. IvoShandor 07:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion to do

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I made several corrections throughout the article. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a good article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: This Missouri state site http://www.dnr.mo.gov/shpo/TaxCrdts.htm provides info on tax credits.  Missouri very proudly proclaims being first in the nation with its program providing state tax credits, supplementing federal tax credits available for National Register properties.  As of June 2008, this page http://www.dnr.mo.gov/shpo/ is all about that.  I think more info on tax credits can usefully be added to this NRHP article. doncram (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tax credit information 

message: FYI to potentially interested folks: There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP renaming proposals of proposals to rename several NRHP-related articles and categories. --Orlady (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming proposals

message: The McKinley National Memorial is an NHL but is certainly not a National Memorial according to the NPS. The Ohio Historical Society sign has it wrong, IMO. I'd like to "move" the page to William McKinley Tomb or some other recognized name for accuracy. Anyone else have an opinion before I proceed?--Appraiser (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been discussion of the name on the article talk page. You might get some more discussion if you posted a message there (or maybe not). From my limited research, I'd say it should not be renamed "Tomb." The official sign in front of it (pictured in the article) says it's the "McKinley National Memorial". http://www.mckinleymuseum.org/mckinley_memorial calls it the "McKinley Memorial" and/or "McKinley Monument" and/or "McKinley National Memorial." The article and that website both say that it was erected by the McKinley National Memorial Association. I found a website selling a souvenir from its dedication in 1907, when it was opened to the public as the "McKinley National Memorial." It appears to me that the fact that it's not a National Park Service "National Memorial" does not alter the fact that its name is "McKinley National Memorial." --Orlady (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: I have a question about how to handle Multiple Resource Area.  These designated areas no doubt add thousands of locations to the list and I don't see them listed here.  Since I'm most familiar with New York, I will use it as an example.  According to http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/research/mpslist.htm there are 95 in New York State alone.  In looking at the application for the Village of East Hampton Multiple Resource Area there are 270 individual property listings!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=100354  The vast majority of these are within existing districts.  However there are 24 additional properties many of which are significant and are not otherwise listed (and for good measure East Hampton didn't include in its MRA a registered historic windmill moved from another town!). Some direction would be appreciated.  One solution might be to have a see also list on the state lists. Americasroof (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Orlady's copying the question to there, please continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Multiple Resource Area instead. doncram (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple Resource Area

message: This has probably been discussed but have two additional questions:
*If a property is destroyed do we continue to list it?
*If a property is moved from county to county which county do we list it?  
Thanks, Americasroof (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied the two above questions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, as I think they are a better fit for the project-wide discussion than for this article-specific discussion. --Orlady (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, continue the discussion there at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Question about destroyed/moved structures.  I thought this was there, already! doncram (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about destroyed/moved structures

message: [2nd try using special "create a new..." link]
Inclusion criteria for links?
What is the inclusion criteria for links? Is it just Don's personal opinion or are there quantifiable measures that can be applied? I ask because I added a link http://usnris.freebase.com which was immediately reverted (although it wasn't labeled a reversion). The site is similar in nature to http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/ in that it's a structured database as opposed to freeform text like Wikipedia, but it has the added advantage that it's strongly connected with topics about things other than just the sites, so you can find all National Register sites that a particular architect designed or sites which are associated with a university or other similar types of queries.
The reversion comment mentioned that the site is a "copycat" of Wikipedia which would indicate that Don didn't even follow the link since it's nothing like Wikipedia. It would seem appropriate to actually investigate before just doing knee-jerk deletes of new information.
I believe that the site includes useful information which is not replicated anywhere else on the web. How do I get a link to it included?65.215.113.195 (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Inclusion criteria for links? 

message: The link is invalid. 0xg0ldpk3rx0 (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 19 

message: There's discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 5#National Historic District about the term "National Historic District", which seems to be incorrect usage but sometimes used to refer to historic districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  Comments there welcome about a proposed dab or a redirect or deletion.  
I am wondering about including a short section in this NRHP article, perhaps "Terminology", that would discuss the term and perhaps others, and give an official type view that the term, while used even in some NPS informal webpages, is informal and not correct.  This section would then be the natural target of a redirect from the term National Historic District. --doncram (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Historic District 

message: 507 Furnace Brook Pkwy, Quincy, Ma02170 the Historic Granite Garage has been domolished on 1/23/2012 and there are plans to erect two wings (22' x 20' each) on either side of Cape style building and removing the two Gas tanks (UST) and installing two drywells next to Parkway.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.169.19 (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to 507 Furnace Brook Parkway 

message: All information from Recent past has been merged into this article. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger complete 

message: My husband and I are in the process of buying a Luston home in Kingsport Tenn we where trying  to find out if it was on this site  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.71.148 (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a List of Lustron houses list in Wikipedia which includes probably all the National Register-listed Lustron homes, but none in Kingsport, Tennessee.  The Lustron house article provides more info.  Probably all Lustron homes are of historic interest, and your one could possibly be National Register-eligible.  Good luck. --doncram 12:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luston Homes 

message: I used to live in a certain county in Ohio i believe is was the site of a mass native american summer encampment. when they would plow the field we would find arrow heads, ax heads made of flint also stone marbles.I believe it to be the summer place for the chippawa(not spelled correct) Indian. there is a large river near by and a huge flat open field.I believe this place should be looked at as a possible historic site.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.45.91 (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  historic native american site 

message: I wonder if anyone can tell me, what are the USN Number and the NR Number, and why aren't they provided for in the Infobox template? I found them at CRIS > SEARCH. Thanks a lot! Vzeebjtf (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Identification numbers

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :National Register of Historic Places's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "nhlsum":
From List of threatened historic sites in the United States: 
From Elissa (ship): 
 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:National Register of Historic Places]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on National Register of Historic Places. 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/20070621134010/http://gis.hpa.state.il.us/hargis/PDFs/200493.pdf to http://gis.hpa.state.il.us/hargis/PDFs/200493.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302203928/http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200636 to http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200636
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) 23:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This would mean a lot of references will have to be changed. CapnZapp (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: I think I updated reference [12] "Criteria Bulletin" with an archived copy. Let me know if I messed up. Danakontos (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  First time updating an outdated reference, probably did it wrong 

message: The four states with the most properties on the National Register are New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Kentucky.http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070519/COLUMNISTS04/705200473 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvoShandor (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note needs written