Talk:Watervliet Arsenal

message: 21:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I notice Iron Building (Watervliet Arsenal) was created as a separate article, suggest merger into this article here.  It is possible that could be developed as a separate article about the museum, but couldn't it be developed here as a section, and split out later if it gets long?  If not merged, the two articles should be revised to link to each other.  The Iron Building (Watervliet Arsenal) article made itself noticeable to me because its NRHP infobox does not comply fully with requirements, so it shows up in a cleanup category. --doncram (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Any idea if there are other buildings at the Arsenal that are listed on the NRHP? Because if there are more potential articles that might show up it might be a good idea to create the names now as redirects to this page before they are made.Camelbinky (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Iron Building is not separately NRHP-listed, nor is any separate component of the Arsenal, as far as i know.  (And reviewing complete National Register of Historic Places listings in Albany County, New York verifies that.) An article about an individual building  that is a contributing building within an NRHP-listed historic district often sports an NRHP infobox using the contributing building customized treatment (which shows contributing property and which links to the main HD article and its refnum).  See documentation at .  Here, the NRHP infobox is not correct because it does not reflect that linkage;  it seems to imply the place is separately NRHP-listed when it is not;  it pops out in a cleanup category because cp is not indicated plus there is no NRHP refnum given.  If the article is kept the infobox should be modified to use the CP type designation. --doncram (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Neither of those is a museum at Watervliet, as far as i can tell.  I take it you mean to say that a museum can be a legitimate topic on its own.  Which I agree with, but also it does not have to be separate.  Also I agree that most National Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks would be individually notable, tho i don't see documentation that this place is one (i do see it is linked from that list-article).  But the article currently doesn't make the case that it is a notable-on-its-own topic.  If you go ahead and develop it substantially, i wouldn't mind, though i don't currently see why it could not be a section in the Watervliet Arsenal article, as it is a museum about the Arsenal.  An article about the museum could really be about the Arsenal.  Or allow someone else to merge, if you don't develop substantially in a month or so.  I may put in the CP link now to help you out a bit, though i am not sure the article shouldn't be merged. --doncram (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron Building (Watervliet Arsenal) merger 

message: "Designated NHL November 13, 1966"
Was this at the time of the first expansion of the National Hockey League?  Every team wants to improve its  "big guns". However, this is the first time the NHL drafted an entire arsenal, so the team ought to be mentioned.   ;-]
I will add a clarification. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which team? 

message: Given the date and reason for its founding, can something be said about the contribution of the Arsenal during the war of 1812? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early History 

message: I was told my grandmother was born on the Watervliet arsenal Indian grounds 2600:1700:7477:2810:4C9:1D1E:8F31:CFFC (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was there an Indian th a t settled in the arsenal?