This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
I partially agree. Cape Henry is a lot more than just the Cape Henry Memorial, which is only one of the things located there. I think that separate article on Fort Story, Cape Henry Memorial, Cape Henry Lighthouse, and even First Landing State Park are not inappropriate, so long as they are not too duplicative, and contain internal links to each other. It is not necessary to lump all related subjects into one page; under that thinking,m why not just move all of this to the Virginia Beach article, then move all off that to Virginia, etc.
Since I created these articles (except the one not yet written about First Landing State Park, which was formerly Seashore Sate Park, which is not totally at Cape Henry anyway), I will set about repairing them unless there is a consensus otherwise. Mark in Historic Triangle Vaoverland21:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe what I find most odd is that Cape Henry redirects here (or until recently did). Perhaps the answer is to merge the Cape Henry Memorial content to Colonial National Historical Park, rename this article, and maybe (or maybe not) put the lighthouse text here. The Fort and State Park are probably not be best here after all. Alternatively, perhaps "Cape Henry" should be more of a disambigution page, linking to the other articles. Anyway, as you are more familiar with these, I won't do anything myself. — Eoghanachttalk12:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that the various articles are each of very different types. Cape Henry itself is essentially a geography feature, Cape Henry Lighthouse = history and lighthouses, Fort Story = army base, etc. I restored the original Cape Henry article, and there are internal links to all the others, which are mentioned. The individual articles should contain more detailed information of each specific nature. My thinking is that readers researching may come across their article of choice by topic, an aspect that can be lost by too much merging. (ie, if i do a Google search for lighthouses, would articles named "Cape Henry Memorial" or worse yet, "Colonial National Historical Park" logically lead me to the oldest lighthouse? likewise, I sure wouldn't want someone looking for Fort Story information to have to find "Colonial National Historical Park".
IMHO, I think there is room in Wikipedia for each of these articles. However, I am part of the collaborative effort her, so we should entertain and consider arguments to the contrary. Respectfully (and thanks for your efforts), Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia. Vaoverland00:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Memorial' at Cape Henry - I've read the talk page content and believe me, I am not adding this section just to muddy the waters...
"Cape Henry Cross" was dedicated by the National Society Daughters of the American Colonists on April 26, 1935, proclaimed "Cape Henry Day' by the Mayor. As the dedication plaque clearly states, the cross was dedicated to commemorate the first landing of English settlers on the anniversary date of the landing, not to memorialize anything, including the planting of the first cross on April 29, 1607.
A request has -as of today- been made of the NPS and its historian Dr. Robert Selig to justify its use of the term "Memorial" for any reason other than because the cross was relocated into its Memorial Park in 1981. As both the Colonial National Park Superintendent and the cited historian are friends of mine, I expect a speedy reply. (I'll hope the name will change with a reversion to its original name and, along with it, all errors which are a result of it.
Also, those of you who live near me (I am 5 mins from Cape Henry), email me. I'm the Treasurer/Recording Secy of the Order of Cape Henry 1607... ooh la la la yawn la. Let's figure out the best place for these articles (as long as it has no reference to "Memorial.") Matt Hogident (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Cape Henry Memorial. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.