Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Historic sites


 * The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The resulting WikiProject was created at WikiProject Historic sites

Description
To cover officially designated historic sites world-wide. Top ten reasons why. And, only wikipedians who sign up here get to wear the official founding member lapel pin. :)

Support

 * 1) doncram (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support, no need to see the top ten reasons. There are thousands of sites that have officially been so designated, and all merit good entries.  bd2412  T 04:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Will help with representing under-represented countries/languages. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Ebyabe (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oh sure.  Durova Charge! 05:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Absolutely! –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 01:46, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
 * 7) Yes indeed! Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) There it's one already? A Yes from me! Grsz  11  05:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) I'm in. Cbl62 (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Sounds good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Me too.   Altairisfar talk  06:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Absolutely - I've been hoping for something like this. Now I can put my copious (read: not copious) knowledge of French historic sites to work for YOU. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 06:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Good idea!   Sandstein   06:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) I'm in. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Yes Sir. God made me a history & geography lovin nerd, so this is a no-brainer.  APK   How you durrin?  06:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) I'm all for it! Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Of course! I figured this existed already, but was too lazy to seek it out. --Fullobeans (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Sure. Lvklock (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Definitely needed & I can contribute for the UK.&mdash; Rod talk 08:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Absolutely required. 9Nak (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) All for it. Bill Reid | (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Sounds good Pubdog (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Support, although there may be some considerable overlapping with other projects. I gather this would include "all historic sites" which is a pretty major project.  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 11:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Yeay!  Jolly  Ω   Janner  11:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Okay then. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Sure dm (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) A natural home for me.  Super!   Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  13:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Sounds good. olivier (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Certainly.  Acroterion  (talk)  13:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) A big scope, but I'm interested to see if this can work. Nev1 (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) Sounds interesting. I'd suggest the project page have links to the Nat'l Historic Registers of various states/Nations. Scope needs some refinement, perhaps: This being the EN.Wiki, do we go to the level of national government, or subdivisions within the nation, like states/counties/prefectures in non-English speaking nations? IN English Speaking nations? Please clarify, but overall concept worthy of support. ThuranX (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) I honestly can't do much work on it, but other nations deserve their own Historic Site Projects besides the United States. Therefore I support it, although I don't view U.S. Post Office as an "evil wiki-hegemony" or a "dab-monstrosity." DanTD (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) Not sure how involved I'll be, but I've certainly done a lot of relevant photographs in Washington State. - Jmabel | Talk 16:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 34) It might be interesting, but I'm not all that familiar with historic places outside the US Einbierbitte (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 35) I support it. Just watch the overlap.   shirulashem     (talk)   16:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 36) Sure, I don't know much about them, but learning will be ½ the fun. --​​ ​​D.B. talk • contribs 18:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 37) I'm in.  PKM (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 38) Slightly short of 10 reasons, so I should probably oppose just for that. Ohio Historical Locations anyone?  §hep  Talk  19:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 39) Count me in. clariosophic (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC) More: I've found though that the terms "Heritage Site" is in use in many places such as Canada. See also World Heritage Sites. Also I'm finding that more and more different levels of government are getting into the designation business. Even my home county in Florida now has county-designated historic sites complete with plaques. I took 3 years of French in college, but I must admit I'm having trouble translating listings for Quebec's provincial and local historic sites. clariosophic (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 40) Support - I presume this will become the parent of other projects (like the NRHP one)? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 41) Support – I don't think it would hurt anything, and maybe some coordination and standards would increase the quality of DYK hooks from this topic (because right now, they're sometimes boring). It would also be good to coordinate efforts to cover historical places in countries that don't have an NRHP, where stuff is a bit more ad hoc. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 42) Support. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 43) Absolutely Support. Ever since I noted the NRHP wikiproject I've wondered how great it would have been to extend this to Europe, with seperate taskforces for the respective countries.--Aldux (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 44) It would be useful to have some coordination and some knowledge about historic sites outside the US, such as Listed buildings in the UK, Monuments historiques in France, the various Canadian heritage registers, and others in Category:Heritage registers.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 45) It would definitely be a good to have a standardized approach. Americasroof (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 46) Fantastic idea if it reduces unsourced boosterism and redundant over-listing. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 47) Excellent idea.  There is far too little structure around treatment of some historic sites - though there are some which are very well looked after.  I believe that having an over-arching structure to it all would help a lot. Karora 04:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 48) Jonathunder (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 49) KudzuVine (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 50) I think this is a great idea - in fact I have been urging the National Trust of NSW to work on Wikipedia to add/update information on historic sites they know about so we can all read about them and visit them. I also think that it will help protect the Heritage values of these sites if they are more widely known.  Iain Stuart (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 51) I'm in. Crazyale (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 52) Strong Support - -- Absolon S. Kent (chat),
 * 53) Sounds good - from UK angle we have EH/CADW/Scottish Heritage & NT/NTS sites, listed buildings, UNESCO World Heritage sites. Plenty of scope for more articles, categories, some standardisation, etc. PamD (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 54) Sure. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  05:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 55) Support - Narthring 22:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narthring (talk • contribs)
 * 56) Support - Caponer (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

✅ This WikiProject has been created, and can be found at WP:HSITES. If someone could please insert it into any appropriate directory listing, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! doncram (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

SWPP

 * WikiProject Historic sites
 * Historic sites

Support

 * The major question that needs to be answered about this seems to be the one about how this would integrate with other existing, somewhat less all-encompassing projects like WikiProject Scottish Castles. I think what would be the best approach is to start by finding such projects and discuss how they work well. Given the level of support shown above though it should probably be OK to just climb on into it.  Certainly looking around today at (e.g.) cathedrals in europe I can see a general hodgepodge, and while I have personally tried to apply some structure to NZ Historic Places, I feel like I could work better with more structure to fit into. Karora 04:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - I've been doing a little work with the list of official historic monuments of France, and a lot of them are covered for other reasons (mostly because they're chateaux.) Which is all well and good, but it tends to leave places like Notre-Dame-des-Missions-du-cygne d'Enghien and Notre-Dame de Toute Grâce du Plateau d'Assy (and a whole bunch of towers in Corsica, incidentally) out in the cold.  And these are fascinating places, to me.  I'd love to see at the very least a database of information about them from which we can work. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or at the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.