Jump to content

Talk:National Historic Landmark

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ken Gallager (talk | contribs) at 12:17, 7 April 2023 (standard indenting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Capitalizing

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)[reply]

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) — Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Unified listing scheme

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)[reply]

US-only

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)[reply]

Largest National Historic Landmark District?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

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)[reply]

Original research

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)[reply]

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.--208.82.225.232 (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --208.82.225.232 (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Tax credit info, etc

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 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.

The Missouri site http://www.dnr.mo.gov/shpo/national.htm 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)[reply]

Refimprove from February 2008

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)[reply]

More on process of nomination?

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)[reply]

More info needed on the purpose of NHL

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? 98.127.119.21 (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Proposed merger with Designated landmark

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agree, designated landmark needs to be completely rewritten or deleted. MarkiPoli (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn after near-unanimous opposition to the central principle based on the linguistic concept of a proper name, noting consistent capitalization in sources. Individual cases (e.g., National Parks of Canada or adding country disambiguation) can be considered separately after closing the discussion of the bundle. (non-admin closure) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:NCCAPS. These are not proper names. The same type of renaming should also be applied to other "List of National Historic Landmarks in (Other place)" and List of National Historic Sites of Canada in (Some place). Note that one of these (National Historic District) is a disambiguation page rather than an article. In some cases it may be appropriate to convert a title to WP:singular in addition to applying downcasing, but this proposal is only suggesting downcasing. Some care should be taken when applying this suggestion outside of the explicitly included list of articles, since in some cases a name that appears to fit the general pattern might be presented as the proper name of a government program or an organization (see South African National Parks). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support in principle, but some of the articles, such as Events of national historic significance are localized and should have the nation's name inserted, such that it reads "Events of Canadian historic significance" or similar. Similarly, National historic landmark in the United States. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Support This seems to be a straight forward matter of moving from title-case to sentence-case. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • At this point, it appears that the basic thrust of the RM is not being supported. However, I have the impression that this indicates that some consideration is missing from WP:NCCAPS and/or MOS:CAPS. From the comments, it appears that these are consistently capitalized in sources, but it also appears clear that these do not meet the linguistic definition of a proper name (identifying "a single entity" – not membership in a formally-recognized class, but "a single entity"). These are more like an "official classification" or "official designation" than a proper name. Perhaps MOS:CAPS should say that even if something is clearly not a proper name, if it is consistently capitalized in a large majority of sources, then Wikipedia follows the practice in the sources rather than the linguistic definition of a proper name. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BarrelProof, a proper noun is not normally plural or if it takes a plural form, it is not then singularised. There are lots of things that are capitalised that are not necessarily a proper noun and capitalisation is not equivalent to being a proper noun. Unfortunately, most people don't see either distinction, so everything that may or may not be capitalised gets lumped into the "proper noun" bucket. That is largely why MOS:CAPS ultimately relies on sources to determine capitalisation - what rules there are, are poorly understood and there are always going to be exceptions. I wouldn't call "National Historic Landmarks" a proper noun. It is a term coined to connote a particular meaning and capitalised for distinction and importance - something WP would not normally do per WP:SIGCAPS. However, enough people (sources) think that it is important enough that it is consistently capitalised in sources, so we go with that. The analogy with "presidents of the United States" is a good rule of thumb but this case is another one of those exceptions I mentioned. I don't think we need to consider a change to WP for this and I don't think we could get agreement on what such a change should be if we tried - just note it down for future reference. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good summary, but I wonder if there should be some way modify the guidelines to reduce the confusion between the fact of something being capitalized in common practice and the idea of it being a proper name. As you noted, "capitalisation is not equivalent to being a proper noun". People unconsciously recognize the difference when they use an indefinite article or plural, i.e., when they say "It is a National Historic Landmark" or "The city contains five National Historic Landmarks". People say "I'm going to Walt Disney World" (a proper name), but they don't say "I'm going to National Historic Landmark" (not a proper name). It occured to me to ping a couple of the people who take an interest in such matters and have expertise, but I don't want to be accused of WP:CANVASSING. I'm also not sure whether it would be OK to do a "speedy OP close" as withdrawn, since that is ordinarily only when no support has been expressed. There is still one expression of support, from Walter Görlitz. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BarrelProof, first things, I think it would be acceptable to withdraw in the circumstances. One could then look at the evidence but I suspect that there is only one that might have sufficient evidence to support a move. I am not the only one to suggest that. I get what you are saying in that the phrase isn't being applied in the way that a proper name would be. However, that assumes that we only capitalise proper nouns. But in practice, there are lots of things that are customarily capitalised that aren't proper names. For example, I wouldn't call business and trade names, proper names but they are things that we customarily capitalise. Many people just don't understand the distinctions you are making. Yet, "there were five Fords parked outside" and "he drove a Ford". These are not proper nouns but they are capitalised because they are derived from a proper noun/trade name. My pet peeve is the "generic v specific" argument that gets made or "its something specific", which ignores that the definite article creates specificity and not everything has to have a proper name. I think we just chalk this one up to one of those exceptions and as for changing MOS:CAPS at a fundamental level, I would point you to the Serenity Prayer. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose National Historic Landmark appears to be an official U.S. government classification under the National Historic Landmarks Program, and a proper noun (like a UNESCO World Heritage Site), not just a general term for national landmarks. This is reflected in media coverage, where the term is used as a proper noun (although if we're just referring to it as a landmark, or its landmark status, we would use lower case) -- for example the Associated Press and BBC, which would only capitalize the term if it was a proper noun, appear to almost always capitalize it. A number of the items in this list seem to share a similar issue.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a phrase is considered a proper name, it is not modifiable or, if it is (such as by pluralising) it ceases to be a proper name. It is analogous with the advice at MOS:JOBTITLES and "President of the United States" but "presidents of the United States". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pulitzer Prize, Eurovision Song Contest, Sugar Bowl, Kennedy, PlayStation and French Canadian are all proper nouns.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Denonyms are not proper nouns but are capitalised by universally followed convention. They do not have a unique or invariable referent (see proper noun Londoner). "Kennedy" in the "Kennedy family" is similarly also not a proper noun in that context but an attributive noun (see proper noun again) which is capitalised by universally followed convention. Also note, that "Kennedy" is modifying "family". In Pulitzer and Eurovision, the true proper noun is also acting attributively and the examples (the whole phrases) are not being modified (nor is Sugar Bowl or PlayStation). The last two are linguistically unitary. These are not good analogies for the titles that are the subject of this RM. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you have noted in your own comments, we treat articles as reliable independent sources do, and overwhelmingly they capitalize the subject like a proper noun. While the nuances of linguistics may be complicated, our own policy is crystal clear on what we should do here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If one wishes to make a claim about what evidence exists and what it would tell us, it is always going to be more convincing if the evidence is actually presented for review. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Capitalisation (at MOS:CAPS) is determined by Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. The USNPS is not an independent source and government sources are known for a tendency to overcap per WP:SSF. However, the titles generally change the form of the formal title by pluralising and that is a primary question. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But since they are also consistently capitalized in a majority of independent sources, the question is largely moot.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me the real question here is how we define a proper name for purposes of NCCAPS. If a commonly capitalized term is not used for something unique but is nevertheless greatly limited in its use, and is a permanent designation granted by a governmental or intergovernmental body, which can only be used by those to whom it has been granted, and is not a phrase that sees much generic use, I rather think we should treat it as a proper name.

For example, "national parks" is lowercased in titles like List of national parks of the United States because national parks are rather common in most of the world's countries ... most nations have them. But I am not sure if any other nations besides the U.S. refer to their really important heritage designees as "National Historic Landmarks" (And similarly with World Heritage Sites ... does anyone other than UNESCO make a list of them? Has anyone ever used the term to refer to anything other than a site on a country's existing or tentative list?).

I note that some honors conferred by the British crown confront us with this issue, as well: List of Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire. And also in the UK, we have the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Site of Special Scientific Interest (here in the same sort of pluralized list form that has been cited as problematic elsewhere in this discussion), terms which I just love for their irresistible Britishness ... I mean, I can just imagine a future designation like Area of No Particular Importance or something like that, something most Britons seem to take pains to affix to where they themselves live, that the late Douglas Adams or Monty Python could have a lot of fun with. But all kidding aside, I don't see those as phrases which are commonly used in discourse outside of those areas and sites so or potentially designated. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel Case, you will see that WP:NCCAPS specifically defers to MOS:CAPS, which there states: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. Proper name has a gramatical/onomastic meaning: a proper noun phrase, since a proper noun is a single word. I suspect you are using "proper" to connote "correct". These terms are probably used outside their regulatory context - in tourist guides etc. To a particular question Site of Special Scientific Interest probably doesn't reach the threshold to be capped. Here are some of the book terms that have recently used the term. The trouble is that everbody has their own views on what should or shouldn't be capitalised, so we resolve that by consulting the sources. But even that can be problematic when editor A doesn't like editor B's list. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • I know this is after the move was closed due to overwhelming opposition, but there are a few points I must make. The nominator's claim above, that a proper noun must be unique, is incorrect. For example, their claim that People unconsciously recognize the difference when they use an indefinite article or plural, i.e., when they say "It is a National Historic Landmark" or "The city contains five National Historic Landmarks" presumably applies to Disneylands as well (to use the Disney World example). There are five Disneylands in the world, yet we don't lowercase them as "disneylands" just because there are several.
    Second, an "official classification" can be a proper name, in contrast to a generic term. Thus, a "national historic landmark" as a generic term is very, very different than a "National Historic Landmark" as a specific official classification. One World Trade Center can be a generic "national historic landmark", but it most definitely is not a "National Historic Landmark". This point would be valid even if it weren't true that NHL is consistently capitalized in reliable sources, which it is. As for matters like national parks of Canada, this distinction is less clear and I would probably even support a "national parks of Canada" move.
Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Disneyland" has several nuances that differ substantially from "National Historic Landmark". One is that "Disneyland" is really only the amusement park in Anaheim, California. Some other amusement parks have other names that sometimes include that word, but if you just say "Disneyland" by itself (at least if you don't live within a short drive of one of the Walt Disney Company's other amusement parks), you're properly referring only to the amusement park in Anaheim (which is why the Wikipedia article about the Anaheim park is at the unqualified name Disneyland rather than at some more complicated name). Another nuance is that "Disneyland" is a trademarked name, and trademarks are capitalized according to their own convention (e.g., we capitalize "Chevrolet" and "Pyrex" even though those are not proper nouns). "National Historic Landmark" is a designation – a classification, a recognition that indicates membership in a group of things, not an identification of one particular place. I agree that "National Historic Landmark" is a "specific official classification", but it is a classification, not an identifier of a single entity. Please see the proper noun article: "A proper noun is a noun that identifies a single entity ..., as distinguished from a common noun, which is a noun that refers to a class of entities." Maybe we want to capitalize "National Historic Landmark" because it's an official designation or because reliable sources capitalize it, but it's not a proper name. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Historic_Landmark&oldid=1148641789"