Talk:National Historic Sites of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Untitled[edit]

Whn I look at Ontario, there are a lot of items listed that are not in [[1]] why? --Brat32 15:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The main Parks Canada site only lists NHSs administered by Parks Canada. See this list for the others: Parks Canada -- TheMightyQuill 18:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

parks[edit]

don't forget that parks canada only takes care of 155. and the "heritage places and exhibits" thing is a parks thing, not a "national historic site" thing. all of this information is unclear in many articles

since Parks Canada doesn't have it's own list of historic sites that it administers, should their list of Historic Sites and Heritage Places and Exibits be listed here with a note signifying they aren't National Historic Sites? or are they already listed elsewhere? i'm refering to these places:

Historic Sites, Heritage places and exhibits administered by Parks Canada

  • Artillery Park (Québec, Québec). An important complex of 18th and 19th-century defence structures.
  • Grande-Grave (Gaspé, Québec). A former coastal fishing village.
  • Green Gables House (Cavendish, Prince Edward Island). The farmhouse which was the inspiration for the setting of L.M. Montgomery's beloved novel, Anne of Green Gables.
  • Old Port of Québec Interpretation Centre (Québec, Quebec). An interpretation of the historic role of the port at Québec.
  • Saint Croix Island International Historic Site (New Brunswick). Saint Croix Island is the site of Pierre Dugua's first attempt at settlement in North America, which led to the establishment of the permanent colonies of Acadie and New France.
  • The Bank Fishery — The Age of Sail Exhibit (Lunenburg, Nova Scotia). A commemoration of the offshore fishery of Canada's East Coast.

Clarity[edit]

This article is clear enough about which sites are listed in the article. All historic sites, or just those run by Parks Canada? At where is the Carlton Trail, aka Winnipeg Trail, aka Edmonton Trail. I found two references for it online but it's not on the list.

Anyway, I'm going to add it, and I'm going to create a new heading for it, since it exists in three provinces. Kevlar67 05:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the input. Actually, if you check the Directory of Designations of National Historic Significance of Canada (on Parks Canada's website), you'll see that the Fort Garry - Fort Edmonton Trail is actually listed as a National Historic Event (as opposed to a National Historic Site or National Historic Person). This distinction is important because this page lists sites, not events or persons. As a result, I'm removing this reference. You can check it out here:
http://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/lhn-nhs/page2_E.asp?keywordInp=trail&nhschoice=alldesig&list2=Generate+List
Juxtatype 07:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy[edit]

The Saint George Antiochian Church currently links to a church in the MA, USA. Is this right?

Did they mean Saint George Antiochian Church in Montreal, Quebec instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.223.219 (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Move/rename[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move.

The title should be List of National Historic Sites in Canada, as "National Historic Site" is a title/proper name, not a generic usage.Skookum1 (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. It is a proper noun, and was not intended to be a generic term. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As a proper noun phrase, though, it sounds to me like it should be List of National Historic Sites of Canada for a national list, because they are official designations "of" the country. On the other hand, "in" should be used with a sublist of NHSs in any smaller area, e.g. "List of National Historic Sites in Ontario" or "List of National Historic Sites in Ottawa". This would be consistent with naming practices for historic sites in the United States, too. doncram (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support move to List of National Historic Sites of Canada. - The proper name is "National Historic Site of Canada", not just "National Historic Site". - DigitalC (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Catting the bag in BC[edit]

I just went through the available links and placed Category:National Historic Sites of Canada and Category:Heritage sites in British Columbia (NB if that 's' on "sites" were capitalized I would have been more selective...); on all but Fort Victoria, which at present is just a Victoria redirect (but needs to be a separate article; this applies to the targeted article in all cases, e.g. the Powell River one goes to the Powell River town article as there's no separate article for the town centre; likewise at other locations it's a feature of the linked place/item that's the historic site (e.g. it's not the whole of Silverdale that's the NHCS, but the location on the tracks where the robbery took place). Tanu is the other one where the categories werne't placed as I've got to rewrite that, or rather that's really "New Tanu" (New Clew) and the original Tanu was eleshwere and it is the NHSC, so I'll fix that. Anyone making one of the redlinks in future please be sure to add the BC heritage category also; the best maybe that can be doen with Harling Point is make the geography article on Harling Point and then see what there is for the cemetery that's citable/article material; could be just the one article; also re BC heritage sites there's lots more than are on this list; theoretically could include municipal-designated heritage too, as it's not British Columbia heritage sites, but heritage sites in British Columbia (not of, as in provincially-mandated). List of heritage sites in British Columbia may already exist, I don't know; should probably be a table where citations of who designated its heritage status can be shown/sorted.Skookum1 (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Lonesome Lake in the Chilcotin - WHS?[edit]

I dropped by World Heritage Site and, lo, "it" isn't one, "it" being Lonesome Lake in or near Tweedsmuir South Provincial Park, which is the site where Ralph Edwards based his conservation work/studies on the trumpeter swan. I thought it was a UN World Heritage Site, maybe there's another classification? I remember it being a big deal with the place got burned out in one of the epic forest fires in the Interior a few years ago. Anyone here remember the story/ I posted a question at the WHS talkpage and also on Talk:Leland Stowe, who authored Crusoe of Lonesome Lake; if not right now, I'll start the Lonesome Lake article but it's an otherwise obscure lake out of tens of thousands in BC; presumably it's still a trumpeter-conservation area, despite the fires. I don't remember all that went on because of the fire, adn I never read the book, or that written by his wife Frances Ruffles On My Longjohns, which is a classic of "bush whife" literature. Not an NHSC or, it appears, a WHS, unelss maybe the latter was cancelled after the cabin was burned out?Skookum1 (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

Some time ago, I added the Parks Canada logo to identify each NHS administered by the agency. It took quite a while, but I notice they've been removed--all 155 (or so) of them. I didn't see an explanation, so I'd appreciate reading one. The logos readily identify which NHS's are within the national park system. Yoho2001 (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Elsewhere i have sometimes seen use of a university or company logo challenged and/or removed in articles that aren't exactly about the university or company, because the "fair use" of a copyrighted image is not justified except in narrow circumstances. Perhaps that happened here? I am not sure if you are saying the logo was used 155 times in this list-article or if it was used in each of 150 separate articles linked from here. But you can find the exact edit which removed the logo by checking the edit history of an article (click on "history" tab above, and then try various past versions of the article to zero in on which is the edit change which changed it, then show that specific edit change. Perhaps you could do that, and report the "diff" here for more discussion, either by providing the URL of the change or by stating its date and time. Hopefully whoever changed it wrote a helpful edit summary, too. Does this help? doncram (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Doncram is right. Logos cannot be used on articles other than their primary topic, because of "fair use" in the US and "fair dealing" in Canada. By the way, Yoho2001 is referring to this article (Yoho2001's edits). Moreover, the logo file itself was deleted from Wikipedia on Nov 10, 2007 (see log entry), and from Commons on Jan 9, 2009 (see log entry), resulting in the removal of the links by CommonsDelinker. So, in this case, it was because the file lacked license information, but it would have been delinked from this article regardless of that. Mindmatrix 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks Mindmatrix. It is too bad that the identification of the Parks Canada ones was removed entirely in the process of removing the logo; that was valid information added by Yoho2001 that could have been noted in some other way, say by an asterisk, instead of just deleting the logo. I wonder if it could be usefully shown in a different way now. I wonder if converting it to a table form with name, photo, and description, and color-coding or some other indication of Parks Canada ones, would improve this article for readers? I really don't want to make this list-article look like all the U.S. historic site lists that i have worked on, but I am sure some other formatting decisions could be taken to keep it different. doncram (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps license information could be entered for the symbol so it could be used. It's also disappeared from the main article on Parks Canada, where it could no doubt appear. It's unclear to me why it ought not to be used on this page, however. The agency has a hand in every single property listed here, even if only by way of installing, maintaining, and annually inspecting a federal plaque. It is vitally involved in operating those properties within the national park system, which is what we're talking about identifying. I notice the US NPS arrowhead symbol is used in the article about that agency, plus the list of its sites. If the argument to remove the logo is valid here, wouldn't it be valid there?
The Parks beaver is also used on road maps and atlases to show park system sites. If it can be used there, why not here? Yoho2001 (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Good questions. I looked and do see the U.S. National Park Service logo in National Park Service and List of areas in the United States National Park System articles. Those are both about that agency only. It would seem analogous to include the Parks Canada logo once in the article about Parks Canada itself and once in a list only about Parks Canada operated parks. I really am not a logo copyright person, but those two uses would both seem like primary use, which Mindmatrix says meets fair use / fair dealing criteria, more so than 155 uses within a list of mixed Parks Canada vs. other sites, which would seem like secondary use. About the road maps and atlases, I assume that is with copyright and/or trademark use permission granted to the publishing company by Parks Canada, for compensation, though i really don't know. There's mention at Wikipedia:Logos#U.S. government agencies about copyright status of U.S. agency logos. WP:MOSLOGO provides style guideline that "strongly discourages" use of logos in articles. Maybe you could pose a question at a copyright violation page, to get more expert information, or perhaps this is enough. It would seem re-adding the logo to Commons with the right licensing description, probably following example for other Canadian and U.S. government agency logos, would be good to do, but just to support one or two uses. doncram (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

discussion notice about Task force[edit]

I opened a discussion section at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Canadian historic sites task force about creating a WikiProject task force on Canadian historic sites. doncram (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada redirect[edit]

This should not be directed here, it should be an article on the board itself. I've re-linked it and unbolded it (and un-italicized it).Skookum1 (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Parks Canada jurisdiction re infoboxes[edit]

An IP user has been adding infoboxes to lots of NHSC articles and re those in BC I've been busy removing flag icons from them (see WP:FLAGCRUFT), as well as correcting the "province" field from Alberta to BC, as apparently a blanket copy-paste was being used and the IP user wasn't too particular about making sure the content in the boxes was actually correct. No some, I took a start at seeing "Parks Canada" in the governing body/jurisdiction field, but "let it go" e.g. re Gold Harbour, British Columbia as it does happen to be within Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve though to my knowledge neither Parks Canada nor the Haida Nation, the governing bodies of that park, have done very much with it (I think it is, not sure - can't find a map showing its location relative to the park)....but on the McLean Mill and Royal Theatre the field still said "Parks Canada" and I'm unsure about that; the Royal Theatre SFAIK is under the jurisdiction of the City of Victoria, I'm not sure about the mill; Yuquot definitely is not under Parks Canada jurisdiction. Unless the mandating legislation provides for protection of the site and/or any monument/facility...Fort Steele, British Columbia I think is under a private contractor mandated via the BC government as is, I know for sure, Barkerville. Can someone clarify this please? i.e. does Parks Canada have any jurisdiction over sites that aren't directly under its control? Or should these sites, e.g. Royal Theatre (Victoria) NOT say "Parks Canada" in the governing body field. NB I only have time to work on the BC articles, could someone else would strip these infoboxes of their flags (and wrong provinces) for the rest of the country; they look really garish and when you think about it somewhere that was created/built under the red ensign or HBC flag or VI flag or Union Jack, or (as with Kitwanga Fort and Yuquot) existed long before the maple leaf flag, or any flag, are just not appropriate.Skookum1 (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The flag was put in because the {{Infobox nhsc}} shows that it should be used by inserting {{CAN}}. They just copied the example provided. I think that some improvements are needed to that template (Infobox nhsc) and I'll make some suggestions on the talk page. something lame from CBW 06:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
That would similarly explain the presence of the Parks Canada link in "governing body", then? I"m uncomfortable seeing it on Yuquot, which is under the government of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nations band government, who I doubt very much have any kind of management agreement with Parks Canada.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Not really they seem to have just assumed that. Probably I would have as well if you hadn't brought it up. It does explain why they were putting in | nrhp_type = [[Canadian]] [[National Historic Sites of Canada|National Historic Site]] though, which of course didn't appear in the article like that. something lame from CBW 07:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Link[edit]

The link for the Metropolitan Theatre in Winnipeg points to a listing for a theatre in Boston. I don't know how to properly fix this myself. 216.36.132.66 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed it. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Conversion to table[edit]

I have started converting the list to table format - I've done Alberta (first alphabetically) and France (shortest), and I am about to embark on Ontario (the jurisdiction with which I am most familiar). Since tables contain more content and are longer, separate lists are needed for each province/territory -- a pan-Canadian list in table form would be exceedingly long (unless we use collapsing tables for each jurisdiction, which just seems gimmicky to me). Any thoughts on the tables done thus far? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

wow big job....i see a barn star in your future Moxy (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the Alberta one. Looks great. Even if you used collapsing tables the page size would still be too large for one article. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 11:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
With holidays and work this past month, I've gotten away from worked on the table in the Ontario list. But I now have time to get back to it, and will hopefully get it done soon. I separated out the other provincial lists, in anticipation of converting them to tables (and, frankly, sometimes I get tired of working on Ontario). As such, since this article is no longer a list, I will proposed to move this to National Historic Site of Canada. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I am not wed to anything I did in the article - especially the section for the lists of national historic sites by location (where someone better at layout might be able to do a better job). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Updated BC list[edit]

I updated the list for British Columbia today using the database at http://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/lhn-nhs/index_e.asp. Apart from 3 new entries and 2 that were merged (Gitwangak National Historic Site), there were 3 wrong entries that I removed: Riverview Hospital (I believe it is in the process of becoming a NHS, but not yet approved), St. Stephen’s Anglican Church (obviously a confusion with the one in Quebec), and my favorite one: Silverdale, site of Canada's first train robbery :-) If this was a joke entry, it is somewhat concerning that it could stay for so long in the list (since 12 June 2008). It even made it into German Wikipedia, the initial version of the list there was simply translated from the English one. --Zeitlupe (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request except that I am moving it to the plural because it is just does not work in the singular. Unlike some articles where singular or plural is just a style issue, this title would imply it is the name of a singular site by that name, and so would be ambiguous and possibly imply something incorrect that is a problem the plural does not suffer from. There are also huge numbers of examples where a phrase like this are not couched as singular, e.g., List of national libraries, List of national governments, Gallery of country coats of arms and so on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


List of National Historic Sites of CanadaNational Historic Site of Canada — As discussed at Talk:List of National Historic Sites of Canada#Conversion to table, the list has been broken down into separate lists for each province and territory in order to allow for the conversion of the lists to tables. As such, this article is no longer a list. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

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 policy on article titles.
  • Support I don't see any reason why not; go ahead and move. Reywas92Talk 01:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support probably could have been done without the request. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 02:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. If it seems like a no-brainer, and perhaps it is, you could always close the discussion and move it as an uncontroversial move. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Never mind. The closing guidelines suggest that you can't until 7 days have elapsed. Sorry about that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

France[edit]

Why is France in the third section of the article? 98.143.97.122 (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Because there are National Historic Sites of Canada located in France. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Fort Howe NP[edit]

I've changed the reference to Fort Howe, from a "national historic park" to a national park. While the site was referred to as both a "national historic park" and a "Historical Park", in 1914 Parliament directed that it be designated Fort Howe National Park. The same was true for Fort Anne, a national park created in 1917. "National Historic Park" and "National Historic Site" designations would come later (the year the "National Historic Park" name was first applied requires research), but in the years they were created, and for some time afterward, they were national parks. Yoho2001 (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources cited quite clearly stated that they were both designated as National Historic Parks in 1914. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Even the Canada Gazette at the Fort Howe article indicates that it was designated a Historic Park, a special class of park, although the actual name was "Fort Howe National Park". The latter does not cancel out the former, and that would be consistent with the Taylor book. Nothing in this article is inconsistent with that, and simply refers to what it was. Interesting historic mis-use of the word "historical", however, although perhaps subsequent post-1914 thinking by Harkin would have lead him to think that the wording "historical" was perhaps better suited. Although Parks Canada today suggests that historic was the intended word. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I added both - what do you think? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm familiar with Taylor's work. Both it and Parks Canada, generally, refer to Forts Howe and Anne in a historical sense as "National Historic Parks", a designation which came some time after they were created (as national parks). It's likely the term is used to avoid confusing the public with the natural parks, and adheres to their later designations. But it is inaccurate to say that, in 1914, Fort Howe was a NHP (or even a NHS), or that Fort Anne was one in 1917. In the years they were created, they were both designated "National Parks" only.
The Gazette from 1914 uses two terms casually and descriptively: "national historic park" and "Historical Park", without "Fort Howe" preceding them. The generic terms recognize the site as being set aside primarily for historical reasons; this park is a different type of animal from the rest in the system. But it does not call the site 'Fort Howe NHP'. Its sole designation is "National Park". This doesn't preclude an explanation of how different terms have been applied to the sites in modern books and references.
We need to find out when "National Historic Park" was first used by the park service for this and other sites, and when it was disbanded, replaced by "National Historic Site" as a public and administrative name—apart from any HSMB designation, whose "NHS" name coincided with the park service's "NHP" for years.
As an aside, "historic park", while an accurate reference of a retired designation, is arguably grammatically incorrect, though used by the service for years. The term suggests that the park—a modern administrative creation—possesses historical significance itself, as a park. In fact, such parks were created decades (even centuries) after the history they commemorate. It would have been accurate to have called them "national historical parks", because the parks had to do with history, but were not historic in and of themselves. This contrasts with "historic site", which is a correct term, since a site is intrinsically historic, as well as having a modern administrative/legal definition. Yoho2001 (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you are making assumptions on what is exactly the point in debate. The source all refer to them as National Historic Parks, and the Gazette said the official name was Fort Howe National Park. The latter doesn't change the former. The best we can do is reflect the sources - refer to both the class and the name. If you think it the reference to NHPs was casual use and/or later attempts to avoid confusion, then you need to find a source in support of that. Absent a source, you will need consensus to make that change. Otherwise we just reflect the sources and don't insert our own opinions and thoughts as to what they really meant back in the 1910s.

I actually do believe the word "historic" was intended, as I think you are making an assumption when you suggest that the reference to park was merely to the contemporary legal entity created in the 1910s. Your theory is equally valid. Either one of us could be correct. However, absent any explicit source that discusses the historic v. historical issue, we should reflect what the contemporary sources say it was. This is a very interesting issue.

The references you added to the Amercan battlefields were fantastic. But (and I am sounding like some harpy here - I am sorry) we need a source. You did provide a source as to the American designations, but we need something that says the Canadians were influenced by the American exercise with their battlefields. That might be in Taylor. I can't imagine we couldn't find a source for this.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It may help to note that Taylor refers to the earliest forts as national parks, but mixes his terms by also calling them national historic parks. That is, in part, what prompted me to investigate. I wondered: 'Okay, what were they, really?' That lead me to the Gazette, which makes it clear. I have come to the conclusion that Taylor's use of both terms reflects their official name as first designated (NP), and a later name change (NHP). I have found, in his book, that the "national historic park" designation was first applied to several national parks in 1940:

“…it was not until 1939 that…a number of historic sites and national parks [were classified] as national historic parks.” (p. 122) “Consequently, in 1940 an order-in-council was passed bestowing national historic park status on the Fortress of Louisbourg, Port Royal Habitation, Fort Anne, Fort Beausejour, Fort Lennox, Fort Chambly, Fort Wellington, Fort Malden, and Prince of Wales’s Fort.” (pp. 122-23) “…Southwold Earthworks, languished in the cold.” (p. 123)

This should help clear things up. So if we're talking about 1914, in the case of Fort Howe, it was a NP, never a NHP. It was given to the City of St. John in 1930, prior to the application of the NHP name to any unit of the park system.
Regarding use of the words "historic park" vs. "historical park", we don't disagree. It's clear the park service used "historic park" in its designation. Back in the day, I might have quibbled with them over its grammatical correctness, but the point is now mute given the classification no longer exists, except as a historical reference.
Glad you appreciated the background on US battlefields. Yes I believe I have a source for that, but I see you've removed the edit and reversed a few others (all?). After having gone to some effort on this to share information, it's frustrating, not least because some of my edits last only minutes before being undone. Perhaps text might be left while we discuss and refine things. I'm not sure why the default setting should exclude the latest contributions when a question or issue arises, when it's quite possible the alteration is accurate. Yoho2001 (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I remember that from Taylor, but all that says is that they started using the term again in 1939 for a class of NHSC that had its own park intendant. It doesn't change the fact that pre-NHSC, Howe and Anne were NHPs, although in a completely different sense. Unfortunately, the Gazette doesn't clear anything up. I am going to take a shot at making the language less specific, and to refer to national historic parks in a generic sense, and tell me if you think that represents a decent compromise.

As for the other stuff, I don't mean to frustrate you and certainly didn't revert everything, and certainly would never remove anything without an edit summary or a comment here. The point is to source information before it is added. Once it is added, the sources never come. Ever. That's not a slight against you. That's how it happens all the time. And then information is tagged as missing a source, and then the tags linger forever. And we don't actually know it is accurate until we have a reliable source. The point is to avoid WP:OR. And like I said above, I am so sorry to be so annoying, but so many editors are so less careful than you are, and unsourced material inevitably begets more unsourced material, which is usually more dubious in nature, and those editors typically insist on leaving it in with everything else that is waiting to be refined and sourced. The text still exists, and can easily be re-added. I think it is a great addition, but we can't just assume that the designation of civil war battlefields by Americans inspired actions in Canada. I strongly suspect it was an influence, and I am very intrigued with the suggestion (it had never occurred to me) and I have no doubt that we can find a source. I will help. It's the weekend coming up, so perhaps we might find something sooner than later.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I found this oder in council about Fort Howe but actually if I remember the 1930 law, the official form was more “Dominion Park” that “National Park”. I found someting about the inspiration, the Quebec Loi sur le patrimoine culturel site, said that Quebec and Canada was inspired by the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest and Natural Beauty of England and the Monument historique of France. --Fralambert (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the Canada Gazette reference we have been discussing, byt the mcccf reference is really interesting, and those influences (British and FRench) should be included when we reinsert the civil war battlefield stuff. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
It took longer than expected to find something, but I finally found an actual that linked U.S. battlefield protection with early Canadian efforts at historic preservation. I reinserted Yoho's text, as well as references to the information found by Fralambert. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This goes without saying, but I am not married to anything that I added, so feel free to make changes. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I took a break of a few days from this discussion. My impetus to work on Wikipedia is to participate in making a positive contribution, sharing new discoveries, and being recognized if not appreciated for those efforts. But I find the negative can sometimes outweigh the positive. With constant challenges, it can be emotionally draining, time-consuming, and frustrating to see contributions changed or deleted, even before discussion—sometimes within minutes or hours of being posted. I will reply to your above notes presently. Meantime, it's good to recall that Wikipedia is not, generally, peoples' full-time occupation.
While taking a break from this discussion, I moved on to culling my collection of NHS photos, believing it was an arena of respite where I could make a contribution without the need to defend something. That hope was short-lived. Most of my photos have been moved from Wikipedia to the Commons, sometimes within hours of publication, without so much as a request or suggestion. That courtesy would be appreciated before action is taken. I notice you've added your name to some of those files. I wonder if I might be able to create a photo file without necessarily requiring assistance. The only 'payment' editors get here is recognition, after all, and one takes pride in something he's made. Elsewhere, Fralambert's name appears first in the file history on these new pages, suggesting he/she is the author of the images.
Also, French descriptions have been written for several photos. Are all photos everywhere getting this attention? In some cases French has replaced English altogether, deleting the descriptions I wrote.
I'm finding the current process antagonizing, first concerning text, and now photos, and I hope we can resolve it so future work can be a joyful collaboration. Yoho2001 (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Yoho, I think the tone of these discussions has been nothing but civil and constructive. Your contributions are very welcome, but at the same time people are entitled to disagree with you on various issues. It can be frustrating at times (I know), but that's how Wikipedia works. We've all felt like you do some days. When one edits Wikipedia, the notices on the edit page make clear that your contributions will be edited by others and that the content must be verifiable. All edits of your work have been accompanied by edit summaries and talk page discussions, by people who want to work with you. I spent a good portion of the weekend, including a visit to the library, trying to find necessary sources for some of your contributions, and I have also inserted proposed compromise language to address the issue where we disagree, so I am not sure that it is fair to be suggesting that people are not trying to work with you or do not appreciate your contributions. If you find that I, or any other editor, is not abiding by WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY, then you should say so. But otherwise there is a process, and the discussions this past week or so have lead to a better article.

As for the photos, I have been meaning for a few days now to tell you that they are fantastic. It looks like you drove across Ontario taking them. They are a wonderful addition to the project. Images like these, especially when they are useful like yours, are routinely moved to Commons, either by other editors or bots. Wikimedia Commons exists to host this type of file, and people like Fralambert deserve kudos for the hours and hours they put in transfering locally-uploaded images to Commons and adding descriptions in other languages. The whole point of contributing to Wikipedia is that your freely-licensed work will be used by others, and I see that your images are already being used on other Wikipedia projects. I haven't reviewed them all, but it appears that you are still identified as the author in all these images. I don't see any instances where an English description has been deleted in favour of a French one, but if that did occur I am sure that it was inadvertent. Commons is a multilingual project, and photos are often accompanied by descriptions in multiple languages. Just like Wikipedia, contributors at the Commons add and improve photo descriptions, all in an effort to improve the contents. Fralambert is listed as the uploader, but not the author - they are two very different things. Fralambert did not actually add his name to the descriptions -- the Wikimedia software, as well as the tools that facilitate the transfer of images, simply record the name of the transferor so that there is a full record of the image's upload history. Hope that helps. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Delisted NHSCs[edit]

For those interested, a number of sites appear to have possibly been delisted/undesignated as NHSCs recently. While there have been a number of former NHSCs over the years, it is usually due to the historic buildings or structures suffering demolition or fire. In this case, a number of sites simply appear to have been delisted. For those interested, the discussion is User talk:Skeezix1000#New NHSs. We will be getting in touch with Parks Canada or the HSMBC to try and get confirmation/clarification/further information. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Administered by Parks Canada?[edit]

I just noticed wikipedia has no list of National Historic Sites that are actually administered by Parks Canada. Is that worthy of its own list, or should those sites simply be flagged/highlighted somehow in the provincial lists? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the body that administers a site, whether it is Parks Canada or some other government, agency, non-profit or private landowner, as being particularly crucial information for overview lists (it's really background information for the actual articles for each site, IMHO). A site isn't any more nationally historically significant because Parks Canada runs it versus, for example, the City of Montreal or the West Vancouver Historical Society. Having said that, I have no objection to flagging Parks Canada sites on the lists (probably better than a separate list) - I may not think it's important to do so, but I equally don't think it detracts from anything I suppose. A few years ago, Yoho had a good idea - he added an icon after the name of each site administered by Parks Canada on the lists, with a mention to that effect in the lead para. Unfortunately, the icon was based on the Parks Canada logo and was deleted as a copyvio. When I suggested to him that we replace it with some other freely-licensed beaver icon from Wikipedia Commons, he was not that keen, and the idea fell away. That might be worth pursuing. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Skeezix. It's not that Parks Canada sites are more historically significant, but it would give readers a fuller understanding of what Parks Canada does (part of why I considered a separate list). It also pretty well guarantees these sites will be open to the public - plenty of designated historic sites are privately owned. Finally, in my personal experience, museums administered by Parks Canada have much higher budgets than those that aren't, so the quality of the experience is often (though not always) better. Your idea about the beaver icon makes sense though - I think that should world, and hopefully not cause a problem with formatting the tables. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the quality of the experience, but in this age of budget cuts I bet some people at Parks Canada would enjoy hearing your compliments! :) (I now understand your comment about a separate list, although on that basis wouldn't a list of all Parks Canada facilities make more sense?) As for the question at hand, File:Beaver 1 (PSF)(retouched).png is the icon being used at the Commons to designate NHSCs, but we could use anything if you have any ideas. I don't think it would affect formatting. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
For anyone interested, after additional discussions with Themightyquill, I have started added beaver icons to the various lists identifying those sites administered by Parks Canada (Manitoba, Yukon and Prince Edward Island thus far). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding a Halifax subheading[edit]

Some of the provinces have subheadings showing how many sites some of its cities have, and I think that we should add Halifax since it has 35. RoshanMcG (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)