Talk:National Park Service rustic

Propose merge from Parkitecture
I propose the article Parkitecture be merged into this one. The two articles are about the same style for architecture. Readers would be better served with one page that describes the style. The information in the Parkitecture article can easy be accommodated in this page. I think this is the page that should be kept and Parkitecture should be a redirect to this page because National Park Service Rustic is the actual name of the style, Parkitecture is a more colloquial name. -- Patleahy 03:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge is OK by me. Lots of nice pictures and refs in Parkitecture. Novickas 12:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I will go ahead and do this. Since I proposed this the original author (Seattle Skier) of Parkitecture commented out the article on the list of articles he created on his user page. I will take this as tacit approval of the merge. -- Patleahy 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do approve of the merge, since it was obviously the right thing to do. I was just giving others a chance to comment before adding my 2 cents, but I guess I didn't end up replying in time.  No problem.  Thanks, Seattle Skier 02:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Grand Californian Hotel
Would it be appropriate to briefly mention Disney's Grand Californian Hotel & Spa as being influenced by tis style? - knoodelhed (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly, although it would be best to have a reference.  Acroterion  (talk)  21:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

New Section for "Other"?
Would it be possible to change the National Forest, State Park, and US Historical Districts Sections into one section with various subsections? Oregon Cave National Monument could be placed in the new section, moved from its current awkward location under "Other National Parks", and the earlier suggestion of the Grand Californian Hotel might be included. Also, should the Mt. Baker Lodge (1927-1931) and the Lake Quenalt Lodge be included, even though they were/are located in land that is now North Cascade National Park and just outside of Olympic National Park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crandon (talk • contribs) 02:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

National-Park-Sevice rustic?
What would people think about changing the article name to National-Park-Service rustic? I think that the word rustic should not be capitalised as per Manual of Style (capital letters). I think it also makes sense to hyphenate the term National Parks Service since it is being used as a compound adjective. Yaris678 (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the lower case capitalization, I disagree with hyphenation. National Park Service is never hyphenated in US usage - at most it might be National Park Service-rustic, which looks strange. Architectural styles generally aren't hypenated in general use, I find. I believe the origin of the term is in some essays by Laura Soulliere Harrison, who didn't employ hyphenation - we should be true to the source.   Acroterion   (talk)   12:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with that. I admit that National-Park-Service rustic looks odd as a name... I was just sticking to the rules of compound adjectives.  Maybe there is a rule that I am not aware of about not hyphenating proper nouns....  Hmmm...
 * Anyway, shall we move the article to National Park Service rustic then?
 * Yaris678 (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, as long as we get that "r" in Service.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He he. Well spotted.  Yaris678 (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done the move (without hyphenation). Yaris678 (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Park Service rustic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005150749/http://www.pc.gc.ca/apprendre-learn/prof/itm2-crp-trc/htm/nriding_e.asp to http://www.pc.gc.ca/apprendre-learn/prof/itm2-crp-trc/htm/nriding_e.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Is "Service" appropriate?
Perhaps this is just a random musing, but why is this style called "National Park Service Rustic" when most of the best examples predate the government bureau created to manage the already-established parks? "National Park Rustic" seems more honest, or simply "Rustic Architecture." In contrast, Mission 66 style, as it was a bureau-driven effort, makes sense as "Park Service Modern" rather than "National Park Modern." — Eoghanacht talk 18:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look around, I wrote this article a long time ago, as you can see from the referencing style. However, I believe the sources are consistent in using "National Park Service rustic" for the house style that was developed and popularized by the NPS, and specifically by NPS architects.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Merger question
As others may have noticed, there are also pages on Wikipedia for Rustic architecture and WPA Rustic. Both pages are quite short, and the former offers nothing distinct from this article. I'm wondering, does anyone think it would be correct to merge the three into Rustic architecture, and have "National Parks Service" and "Works Progress Administration" as sub-topics? There's also a page called Architects of the National Park Service. One way or another, this needs some clean up and consideration. Tsc9i8 (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)