Talk:National Historic Landmark

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

Previously unsectioned comments from 2005-2006[edit]

Should this article be moved to National Historic Landmark (with capital letters)? The National Historic Landmarks Program website uses capital letters when talking about National Historic Landmarks, and indeed, so do most third-party websites and most links in Wikipedia itself. 青い(Aoi) 08:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you're correct. It was actually moved to National historic landmark about a month ago. The reason given in the edit is rather dubious. Mike Dillon 05:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the response. I'll be moving this article back, since National Historic Landmark is in this case used as a title, which according to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions, should be capitalized. 青い(Aoi)
At best, you can say that "National Historic Landmark" is a proper noun because it is the official name of a class of things. However, I see no difference between "national historic landmark" and "nuclear submarine," "customer service representative," or "claw hammer." IMO, this article should be moved back. --Tysto 01:53, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
Since the article has to do with an official designation, the capitalization is correct. The general term "historic landmark" would not be capitalized. Examples of official designations would be "Defender of the Faith," "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval," or "Department of Health and Human Services" Dystopos 05:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many people regularly read this talk page, but I think there ought to be a unified listing scheme, whether to use commas or hyphens, how to list location, whether or not to list date added to register, etc. Before I engage in wholesale changes to the entire page to attempt to unify it, I'd like to see if anyone has any preferences. I suggest that since it appears to be the dominant format on the page we use "Name of landmark - city '(no state)'" and omit the date added to registry. Sertrel 07:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this page needs to be more specific that this is a US-only thing, as the word "national" only applies to the US if you indeed live there. Apathetic 01:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Largest National Historic Landmark District?[edit]

I was wondering if anybody knew what the largest district in the country is. A number of city and neighborhood wikipedia articles make this claim, and a quick google search finds a bunch more, with Butte claiming to have the most here [1], and this page [2]making a pretty believable claim that Lancaster's Historic District has the most contributing buildings (13,411) and that King Ranch in Texas has the largest area at 1.2 million acres. Anybody have any comments on this? Passdoubt | Talk 21:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello - according to the official National Park Service list here (it's a PDF) there is no Lancaster Historic District in Pennsylvania. There are plenty of specific NHL's in Lancaster County, and undoubtedly plenty of other historic properties, but it is not a National Historic Landmark District. So I stand by my claim (that's my site you referred to about Butte) that Butte has the largest number of contributing properties. I did quite a bit of research to come to that conclusion; it looks to me as if Savannah is definitely the second by contributing properties. However, there is some subjectivity to all this, which is why on the comparison page you cited I tried to make it clear that it isn't much more than bragging rights. Nice to be able to brag, though! FYI I'm trying to determine whether or not Butte may also be the FIRST NHLD - with a 1961 designation as a district, the competition for district designation seems to be with Montana's Bannack and Virginia City districts, designated the same day, despite the claims of Annapolis (1965) and Jacksonville Oregon (1966) that they are the first NHL Districts in the US. Cheers Geologyguy 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Note added later - apparently the earliest NHLD's designated were three listed on October 9, 1960: Charleston Historic District (SC); Williamsburg (VA); and Ste. Genevieve (MO). Cheers Geologyguy 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Further research reveals this: Lancaster is a National Register District, not a National Historic Landmark District. There are over 80,000 National Register properties [3] , and a proportionate number of National Register Districts. National Historic Landmarks (NHL), on the other hand, are rather more prestigious, with fewer than 2,500 designated, and there are about 132 NHL Districts. This PDF helps describe the difference between National Register places and National Historic Landmarks - it is not trivial. So, as reported here, Lancaster PA is very likely the largest National Register District. But I still stand by my claim that Butte is the largest National Historic Landmark District, and that that designation is quite a bit more significant than National Register status. Cheers - Geologyguy 15:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, regarding King Ranch - it is not a NHLD, but one single designated NHL, albeit a very large one. I don't know how many historic structures there may be on the ranch, but it is not likely to be hundreds, much less thousands. I do not know for sure which NHLD is the largest by acreage, though I suspect (and I'm TRYING to be unbiased) that again Butte's expanded district is the one. Cheers Geologyguy 16:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Adirondack Park in New York or Cape Krusenstern Archeological District in Alaska may be the largest NHLDs in terms of area. Butte-Anaconda Historic District may have the most structures. All that is suggested in an 2006 newspaper article upon the expansion of the Butte district, involving interview with the secretary of the interior, a reference in the Butte article. It's also possible that only a small portion of the King Ranch in Texas is landmarked. doncram (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

This article was tagged with Original Research indications, which i just removed. It is reasonable to have the concern, because the article cites numbers such as approximately 2,430 NHLs existing, and 256 NHLs in New York State, without external sources given. However, there is a PDF list of the National Historic Landmarks of the U.S. which the National Park Service puts out that is referenced in many list-articles of NHLs (and should be referenced here if it is not). It supports many such counting statements. Also, further statements may be justified by links to the wikipedia list-articles of NHLs. It is not generally appropriate in wikipedia to have sources be other wikipedia articles, but a careful read of wp:OR will show you that it is not Original Research if there is not a POV being pushed. For factual information such as how many NHLs in a given region there are, a list-article that shows them all is sufficient evidence. It is factual, objective information with no POV slant, so it is not Original Research of the bad kind. doncram (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedias simply do not collate original research at all. No matter how good it seems. The argument here for OR is invalid, not the other way around.-- (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Your claims are simply invalid, no easy way to say it. You need to reread the OR policy, no where does it differentiate between "good" and "bad" OR. Maybe in the synthesis section, but you are badly misreading wikipolicy, indeed. Not that you will listen to me, seeing as how you summarily dismissed my concern with mistaken interpretation of wiki-policy. No wonder no one trusts this site. -- (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
What are the specific concerns? Another option, besides tagging an entire article with original research concerns, is to put a "fact|date=August 2008" tag (replace quotes by double squiggly brackets) next to any specific assertion in the article that you actually question. doncram (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Tax credit info, etc[edit]

I think this article could benefit from discussion of tax credits and/or any other benefits available for NHLs, if any, beyond what is available for NRHPs.

As i noted in Talk:National Register of Historic Places:

his Missouri state site 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 is all about that. I think more info on tax credits can usefully be added to this NRHP article.

The Missouri site provides info for Missourians who might go on to nominate their properties to NHL, at bottom of page. As well as link to a study/article on economic benefit of NRHP listing.

However, I think that there may be no further tax credit benefit for getting an NHL rather than a regular NRHP, unless some individual state provides a specific benefit. This should be noted. doncram (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Refimprove from February 2008[edit]

Being WP:BOLD, I removed the {{Refimprove}} from February 2008. If there are specific items which need additional citations, please use {{fact}} or another from Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates. — MrDolomite • Talk 12:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

More on process of nomination?[edit]

Have editors considered including more about the process of nomination? New nominations and documentation generally are prepared or approved by State Historic Preservation Officers, when originating properties for recognition. One reason to mention this is that the supporting materials are good sources of content about the buildings and often the history of the community. Also, over the last several years, the NPS has started to do thematic surveys in an area or community, incorporating new directions in their programs that recognize more of landscape and historic context, so that multiple properties are considered at once. Such major surveys are authorized by Congress, as I recall.Parkwells (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

More info needed on the purpose of NHL[edit]

What is the purpose of being designated a NHL, besides having a title? Are there any laws which restrict what actions may be taken with a NHL? Can you upgrade, modify, or destroy NHL's without consequence? (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty much just a title. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 applies to any place of historic significance, regardless of whether it has or has not been officially listed as a NHL or on the National Register of Historic Places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circumspice (talkcontribs) 05:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that this should be mentioned in the article, as one might assume that NHL status protects a property from demolition or provides funding for its maintenance, but it does neither. Circumspice (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Designated landmark[edit]

There exists a page Designated landmark which is essentially a more verbose and less useful (and at times inaccurate) article on National Historic Landmarks. I'm proposing that the useful content (if any) from that page be merged to this one. Discussion is probably best had at that talk page, rather than this one.Circumspice (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • The Designated landmark article needs to be rewritten to focus on state-level and city-level historic landmark designations, of which there are many. SounderBruce 01:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That article, also, already exists, as Historic districts in the United States. If anything, Historic Districts in the United States could be edited a little to include some discussion of what "landmark" means in certain jurisdictions, and renamed Historic Districts and Landmarks in the United States. Some state and local jurisdictions (but not all) do make the distinction that a district is more than one resource and a landmark is a single resource, but I don't think that warrants separate articles, as the two concepts are pretty much the same deal in every other respect.Circumspice (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Designated landmark (as it is currently bannered) needs to be rewritten from a global perspective, including material summarized from World Heritage Site, scheduled monument, National Historic Sites of Canada, Monuments of Japan, and other country-specific national and subnational designation schemes. The US portion should obviously be much smaller there, any useful bits on NHLs merged here. Magic♪piano 12:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree, designated landmark needs to be completely rewritten or deleted. MarkiPoli (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)