Talk:National military park

Name change
I moved this page from national battlefield for two reasons.
 * 1) "National Military Park" was the designation of the first such protected area.
 * 2) I do not think any country besides the U.S. has "military parks" so the name is unique, and thus the page won't be changed to something unwieldy like "U.S. National Battlefield."

"National Battlefield" may seem more common though, so the change does not make perfect sense. Please drop me a line if anyone has a problem with it. &mdash; Eoghanacht  talk 17:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

List of sites
I'd like to add a list of the 25 sites to this article, much like has done with National recreation area. I find it rather unsatisfying that the list of of sites under each designation redirects to a different section of List of areas in the United States National Park System, since there are only somewhat arbitrary distinctions between the 4 classifications (based on size and the whims of Congress mostly I presume). They should all be listed here. I'm going to take a crack at this soon unless there are any objections. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That would be terrific! This has been on my long-term to-do list, but since I've only even been to one of them (so far!) it's been lower on it. My thought had been to have them all in one table since there is no real distinction, and to perhaps include a sortable column for the war or the date of the event beyond just the description. Looking forward to seeing what you do with it, and I'm happy to help with getting it toward FL status. Reywas92Talk 20:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I too envision a single sortable table, with a "designation" column and columns for event/battle, conflict/war, and dates. We'll see what I come up with when I get to it, hopefully over the next few weeks. Just wanted to plant the seed here to make sure others didn't have other plans. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I added the table, I'm not happy with some of the pictures and only did a deep search of commons for a couple; mostly I just pulled what already existed in the articles for each site and/or battle, so feel free to improve. Visitation and/or descriptions could be added, but visitation is hard to keep updated and I think is less meaningful for these sites, as the events they preserve and their size seem more important. I also think the battle and war links are useful and important. Certainly an improvement over the "See also" links piped to the main List of areas article where the sites are separated out by designation. I'd like to better integrate the NHS, NHP, and NM pages and lists because many sites of military history relevance have these designations. Will think on that. I will also update the established dates and areas in the individual articles, as the ones here are current.Mdewman6 (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

, thanks for helping tweak the new table. I understand trying to make it more compact, and am fine with smaller images and "Type" instead of "Designation" etc., but I do favor having the NPS websites as external links consistent with WP:ELLIST. The "Battle(s)/description" column seems a bit clunky, it doesn't really contain descriptions, and the official website is about the NPS site and not the battle. I suppose each is a RS that links the battle with the site, but I really do prefer the external link format as I think it looks a lot cleaner and neater. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I prefer that link format too, but I'd been told before at FLC not to do that because it's better to present it as sourced information with a footnote for the row. Easy enough to change back though, but a column just for a link or source takes up unnecessary space too. About Battle/description, that would be the place to discuss in the future not only what the battle was, but also why it's important and what happened then/what's there now making it a significant site/attraction. But I know there's no description there now! I can change the links back and then let you build it as you think best. Reywas92Talk 23:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we can always revisit this later, especially if someone else has objections, but I think having a separate website column for the official website is best. I get that it's technically also a RS for inclusion criteria, but really we are deferring to the linked articles for the sites and the battles and their sources. Having a separate column looks cleanest and most organized to me. WP:FLC probably has their own criteria as you say, but I think using external links in a separate column is an option per WP:ELLIST. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If they were to need to go into another column, they should go next to the entry for the park in the first column. But I think think this too would be cluttered. Never ideal to have two different links next to one another. Anyway, I think things look good for now until we decide to try to something else with the table. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 October 2023

 * 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: moved. The discussion has generated no support for the title case and no opposition for the sentence case. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

National Military Park → National military park – Not a proper name. The NPS even doesn't cap such designations. Move history says there was a consensus to capitalize such things, in a "CfR" in 2006. If anyone can find that, let's review it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Links: CfD log and previous PAREAS thread. Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 05:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The categories close to "rename as nominated" does not appear to reflect a consensus to capitalize, just a lack of consensus to go lowercase.
 * Support, probably could've been a bold move. Reywas92Talk 14:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

16:11, 28 March 2006 Eoghanacht talk contribs block 36 bytes +36  moved National military park to National Military Park: capitalization -- this issue has gone back and forth, but a CfR a few months back came up with concensus to capitalize NPS designations. is currently active and should be asked for details of this CfR (I think that may be the German Wikipedia name for RfC). Andrewa (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per analogous consensus at Talk:National_recreation_area, and I've been meaning to fix the capitalization for other designations too, and forgot about this one. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I note
 * Appears to be a reference to Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 16. BegbertBiggs (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Got any more info on this? Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Relisting in hopes of further discussion. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as proposed it should be National military parks of the United States, as "national military park" without capitalization is way to generic, there being many such that are not American -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are no "national military parks" outside the United States, let alone any that are covered on Wikipedia, so the designation is not ambiguous. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are many parks maintained by nations for the remembrance of the military, national military parks, that are not American and are not in the United States. If the descriptive title "national military park" is used instead of the proper noun "National Military Park", then yes, there are many such. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Which have articles here that this page would be confused with? Just because something is a park related to the military does not mean this term will be ambiguous. Reywas92Talk 03:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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.