Talk:National Historic Sites (United States)

Merge?
This article seems to cover the same material as National historic site and that term, not this one, seems to be more used. Rmhermen (talk)

I think that this article should be made into one section and put in the National Historic Site Article. --Coingeek (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This proposal has been out here a long time. I take it there are no objections to merging? --Mcorazao (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Canadian section of this article contains a few inaccuracies (the term National Historic Park was only used between 1914 and 1919, and even then only for two sites), so I am not sure how valuable it is. No objections to the U.S. information being moved over to National Historic Site (United States) or vice versa (it does strike me from reading the articles, however, that they are slightly different concepts, so perhaps moving the information over to Property type (National Register of Historic Places) would make more sense).  User:Reywas92 removed the merge tag over at National Historic Site (United States) on the basis that "there's a difference" (according to his/her edit summary).  So there may be an objection to the merge -- I will leave a note on Reywas92's talk page asking him/her to elaborate here.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you want this article to cover both topics, it can. I have merged the site article here, as it was very short anyway. Reywas92 Talk 18:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you have muddied the waters a bit. Now there is a generic "national historic park" article that covers both the USA and Canada, but also one specifically for national historic sites in Canada.  According to the latter article there are over 900 Canadian National Historic Sites.  Whereas in the US, there are (assuming the count is accurate) 90.  So I think this is clearly comparing apples and oranges.  In the US, the vast majority of national historic sites and parks are staffed and managed by a federal agency and are for the most part nationally significant.  In Canada, the term seems to encompass a lot more and includes mostly private properties.  In fact, I would wager, but I am not sure, that the Canadian term basically encompasses what in the US are called national historic landmarks.  So it is now very odd to have an article on the Canadian one, but not the American one - not because the Canadian sites are necessarily less significant, just because the Canadian term encompasses a lot more than what "national historic site" is in the United States.  I'd also note that the Canadian article is called "List of..." even though the article provides more than just a list, but that's a separate issue.  Anyway, personally I think it was better to have a stand-alone article for US National Historic sites, though I'll both admit that the article needed some work and could also discuss US national historical parks, which are essentially the same thing but with more than one building. I did not see the proposal to merge, but had I seen it I probably would have objected for the aforementioned reasons.MDuchek (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - I see that it has been proposed to change the Canadian article's name, but otherwise I think my comments would remain the same.MDuchek (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comments, although I am not sure that the merge is the problem. It never made much sense to have articles that covered both Canadian and American designations, for either national historic sites or national historic parks, as the only thing that the concepts in both countries have in common is similar names.  It was be a lot simpler and cleaner to have separate Canada and U.S. articles (there isn't much left of the Canadian stuff here, in any case), and maybe split off the "International Historic Sites" section into a new article on joint American-Canadian historic sites (which itself is a completely different concept).  This article tried to cover a grab-bag of topics, and should instead be focused on the American designations, with some sort of title that makes sense.  Ideas? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe this article should just be moved back to National Historic Site (United States), with the Canadian information removed? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think both of those comments sound good. As for international, the two there are already part of the US national park system (i.e., they are also national historic sites/parks) so you could still mention that there. MDuchek (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

General term
This article was moved on a good faith basis to National historic sites (United States) on the basis that it is a general term and not a proper noun. I reverted the change to allow some discussion, as I am not entirely convinced the move was correct. Given that the same issue was simultaneously raised at Talk:National Monument (United States), perhaps it could be sorted out there before proceeding with a move. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)