Talk:List of California Historical Landmarks

message: This list-article could be converted to a big, sortable table.  Its initial order could be kept the same or put into alphabetical order by landmark name, or put into CHL number order.  Anyhow it would be sortable by landmark name, CHL number, by town, by county.  And/or it could be expanded to include a column for a photo of each site and a description, much like List of National Historic Landmarks in California, but then it would probably have to be split into several chunks to keep within 100k page-size suggested limit.  Comments? doncram (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Sortable would be great; I actually visited this talk page solely to request this because I wanted to sort by CHL #. About the size thing, you could possibly make a separate page for some of the counties with a larger number of landmarks such as Los Angeles and Nevada counties. I don't necessarily see the need for an info section; one can click on the article's link for info. I like the image idea, though. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not every CHL is suitable for an article. Some of them aren't going to more than stubs, such Alameda County #970, where rainbow trout were identified. howcheng  {chat} 00:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of those listed on the National Landmark pages are either stubs or redlinks too. I am re-added the split tag to see if anyone else is bold enough to start the conversion. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually in the process of developing this into sortable tables based on the county (like NRHP). Just FYI. This is specifically for the Wiki Loves Monuments campaign. I'm also going to totally redo this page when I complete it. SarahStierch (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Convert to sortable table format?

message: Shouldn't this page be classified as "list class" instead of "stub class"? The page does begin with the words "List of"....
That's my $.02 --Killiondude (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--S. Rich (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List rated??? 

message: There are three landmarks listed without CHL numbers. It turns out that this is because they are not in the official list. They are, though, in the list of California Historical Resources here because they are in the National Register of Historic Places. The lead for this page, though, clearly draws a distinction between these lists, so I am removing the following sites from this list:
* Napa Valley Opera House
* Alcatraz Island
* Churchill House
—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landmark vs. Resource 

message: The Wiki Loves Monuments US contest is over but there are very few photogrphs of California Historical Landmarks. (I contributed for Placer County only but neighboring counties seemed to have a similar situation.) Perhaps many contributors (myself included) found it difficult to determine what exactly constitutes one of these landmarks. The landmark names are very generic, such as "Transcontinental Railroad - Auburn" or "Virginiatown". Only on the last day of the contest was I able to confirm that some of the addresses acually specify the location of a physical marker, generally a small masonry column with a plaque affixed (though often the metal plaques appeared to have been stolen). The addresses here are not very accurate (the original source usually has more information) and the coordinates are often slightly off. In some cases I couldn't find a physical marker at all, or I found several plaques from different organizations but none from the state. So the subjects of my few photographs range from a pile of rocks with no plaque to random old items loosely associated with the name of the landmark.
Are all landmarks on this list supposed to be physical markers erected by the State of California?
--T71024 (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. The majority of the content on these lists have markers. Some of the "landmarks" still exist (i.e. old buildings, etc), when some might not anymore. When the latter is the situation, I always take a picture of the surrounding area near the sign, or what has become of it. For me, even that evolution is interesting. There are also many historical photographs - especially useful for California, since photography was an full fledged process when many of these landmarks were...becoming landmarks. SarahStierch (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly is a landmark? 

message: Very attractive page. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretty