Notes[edit]

Replaced the simple image of text with more attractive graphic logo (IMHO) that appears on the title page of the "official site". Could not find the text image at the NRHP. —dogears (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for fixing the whitespace issue[edit]

dm 14:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected name[edit]

((editprotected)) Could someone change the name parameter to "National Register of Historic Places," so all the vde links don't have to redirect from Template:Registered Historic Places to here? Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility improvement[edit]

((editprotected)) For WP:ACCESSIBILITY by visually impaired readers, the purely decorative image that this template generates should have "link=" instead of alt text, as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. To do this, please install the obvious sandbox patch. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility update

((editprotected)) Since the previous comment the Mediawiki software has been changed to also require |alt= to mark the image as being purely decorative. Please also install the obvious sandbox patch. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

((editprotected)) [[List of areas in the United States National Park System|National Park Service]] should be [[National Park Service]]. I do not see why this links to something other than what it says. Many of the areas on the list are not on the NRHP so that link is irrelevant. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 19:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

((editprotected)) Please pipe the references to National Historic Sites and National Historical Parks both to National Historic Sites (United States), otherwise the former points to a DAB page and the latter points to a redirect. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - did you actually click the links? They do not point to Articles, they are piped to Categories - National Historic Sites and National Historical Parks
No need to be snippy. I was fixing DAB links, came across the template in one of the articles, and made the request. Made an error, you caught it, all is good. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Icon - Edit request[edit]

((editprotected)) Can you remove the icon per WP:ICONDECORATION Gnevin (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this first, then add the edit request. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure the guideline cited is meant to be applied to articles. And it's a guideline, not a policy. Alternatively, the icon could simply be linked to the National Park Service article (I think that's possible) and then the encyclopedic criteria is met as outlined in the guideline. IvoShandor (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No its not , making it a link doesn't change the fact his decoration . Also MOSICON applies to all encyclopaedic content Gnevin (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your opinion, it's a guideline. You would need a consensus here to remove it, I am pretty much neutral on it myself, not really a big deal either way. IvoShandor (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's persisted for so long without objection strikes me as consensus to keep it around, though I think if it were removed we could establish that consensus had changed, that is if it wasn't challenged. Any one else have some thoughts here?IvoShandor (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the guideline is intended primarily to address the addition of wee flags and other icons to articles and texts, and wasn't intended to prevent images being used in templates. Having said that, the same logic can apply, and sometimes the graphics on templates are distracting. Here, however, the logo seems appropriate. It is neither distracting, nor does it interfere with the layout of the information within the template. I'd say keep. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been there since the template was created for WikiProject National Register of Historic Places and is currently used on many, many thousands of articles. As a member of WikiProject NRHP I know that any change would be hugely controversial. I don't see that guideline applying here, but even if it does a discussion at the NRHP talkpage would seem to be the most appropriate first course of action. Altairisfar 00:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While a link to this discussion over at the Wikiproject would be appropriate, there is no Wikiproject veto or anything. It's fine to have the discussion on the actual template talk page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the icon should be removed for this template for the above reason, then shouldn't all icons be removed from all templates? I would think this should be part of a larger discussion. Where would one post such? --Ebyabe (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. If a decision is made to remove this icon, for whatever reason, it doesn't mean that it would change the consensus vis-a-vis other templates. Depending on how this discussion went, someone could potentially seek to reword WP:ICONDECORATION or add another section to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) respecting rules for icon use in templates, but that would require a new round of discussion to get consensus on that. Given that there does not appear to be an avalanche of support for the notion of removing the logo from this template, it might be premature to start worrying about project-wide impacts. Having said that, it might not be a bad idea to provide a link to this discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons).--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The use of icons in Wikipedia ... can provide useful visual cues" for navigation, and I believe that's the most appropriate use. This certainly does give navigation clues. It is used on talk pages of articles in the project (exclusively I believe) rather than articles where MOS:ICON seems to best apply. The picture is readily identifiable and helps in navigation. For example if I am rating an article that has several project infoboxes and I want to only put the rating in the NRHP box, it's easy to count down the number of other boxes to skip. It's easy to click the nearby text to go back to the project page. It's easy to click other nearby text to go to the NRHP article if that's necessary. It's easy to check that somehow I didn't get on the wrong talk page (I often keep 3-4 tabs open). It just makes it easy to navigate. And that is allowed. Also I believe the logic used against this, could equally well be used against any project icon used on the talk page. And that wasn't the intention of the writers of the guideline. While Skeezix might be technically correct in saying that the process of removing this type of icon would have to proceed icon by icon, doing it here for the first time would open a huge can of worms. Smallbones (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what can of worms that would be; it wouldn't impact any other aspects of WikiProject NRHP, anyhow.
I am one longtime, active NRHP editor who has always wondered a bit about that icon on the template. It has seemed spurious, like flag icons used elsewhere. I am not aware of it being helpful for navigation. It seems like a miss-suggestion, confusing National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) with the National Park Service (NPS). I think the NPS is most associated with America's big National Parks. Technically the NRHP is within the NPS, I think (but i am not really clear; i think both are within the Department of the Interior). The vast majority of NRHP sites are more associated with State offices whose staff nominated them or worked on their nominations; often it seems NPS just handles recording of the entries, with addition of data entry typos. :) I wonder if there is a more NRHP-specific logo that might be more appropriate. Also I don't see any impact upon anything, if the icon were to be removed. Also I am not sure that removal would be controversial, but agree that notice of this discussion should be given over at wt:NRHP. --Doncram (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing the issue of whether this icon should be used, with the issue addressed above of whether ANY icon can be used. If you look at talk:Mount Rushmore there are about 10 icons used for various projects. The can of worms is not about anything else at wp:nrhp, it's about whether any project icons can be used anytime anywhere; which is what the logic used above would prohibit. Smallbones (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NPS logo in question
I thot this is about the National Park Service icon on the navbox Template:National_Register_of_Historic_Places which displays in mainspace at the bottom of many NRHP articles, not about the photo of Mount Rushmore or other images which appear within WikiProject banners on Talk pages such as this one and Talk:Mount Rushmore. In mainspace Mount Rushmore, i see the NRHP navbox with the NPS logo, and one other navbox Template:Protected Areas of South Dakota with no logo, and no other logos or icons. --doncram 21:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops - I was looking at the template at the top of the page, not the template on the "template tab". It's a good thing I redacted all those personal attacks I made against doncram. I wouldn't be against removing the arrowhead logo, or replacing it with another, but I also don't see much point in removing it. Some of what I said above still applies. Don't most other project templates have some sort of image? It can help in identification, and what's the harm? Smallbones (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NRHP plaque image
Do we have a candidate for a replacement image? Or should we just remove it until a replacement is identified? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is the photo of a plaque. I haven't liked seeing that used as a placeholder big image in NRHP infoboxes, but maybe this is a good use for it, in reduced size? --doncram 03:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, as far as I am concerned, but that doesn't address the original issue of whether any icon can be used. Perhaps the icon should be linked to WP:NRHP? Smallbones (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP space links are generally supposed to appear in main space. To me it looks like the choices here are pretty slim pickings, neither image is particularly legible in use on the template and they don't really go anywhere. Surely there is a happy medium to be had. I still think the icon/image used should link to something, despite disagreement about the value of such links. As I said, I'm neutral on the whole issue, could take it or leave it, but I just wanted to chime in here. Happy editing! IvoShandor (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't read the text at the proposed size, I don't really see any advantage of having the image there. However, if we had a readable representative image, I could see using that. I don't have that strong of an opinion either, but it does seem that using a tiny box wouldn't be ideal. If it were bigger, it would be readable, although just barely. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 07:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the visual, here is what the template would look like with no icon at all (another option).

IvoShandor (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like this option the best. It also makes the navbox a bit shorter. If we want to add links to the Portal, WikiProject, and Category, we go do it with the "below" field, which is how they do it with boxes like ((Jazz)), for example. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has a very pleasing look, at least to my eye. The more I look at it the more I view the status quo as clunky and unwieldy. At this point I would lean toward no icon at all. IvoShandor (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the originator of the request I agree with looks better Gnevin (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Longfellow National Historic Site got renamed to Longfellow House-Washington’s Headquarters National Historic Site on dec 22, 2010. Please change the link. TIA --h-stt !? 21:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...What does that have to do with this template?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Please merge with ((NRHP by state-region)). Essentially all this entails is just to copy the contents of "NRHP by state-region" and replace the contents here with it (I've done the actually merging there, as it was not protected). You can also replace the contents of "NRHP by state-region" with a redirect if you wish, but I can do that once it's been copied over. Thanks, ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 16:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but given the consensus in the icon discussion above, I would first remove the image of the plaque in ((NRHP by state-region)). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, though, with the substanial alteration of the template, I wonder if the issue may need to be looked at again. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 17:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. You may be right. I just didn't think a merge should be undertaken with that image, so shortly after the icon discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be fine, now, without an image. Should it be discussed again and the consensus changes, the image could be added then. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 20:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Please make sure that the appropriately filled out ((Copied)) template is on the talkpages of both pages. Thanks. Woody (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have added the Copied templates. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 23:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 71.20.8.226, 17 June 2011[edit]

"Morocco" is the last entry in this Template (National Register of Historic Places), which concerns only the United States and its territories. "Morocco" ought to be removed, as it is not relevant to this topic. Thank you.

71.20.8.226 (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the American Legation, Tangier is the only property in a foreign country listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, thus, Morocco actually belongs :-) --IvoShandor (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's technically correct, but is there really a need to link to a single historic property in a template that's transcluded in more than 20,000 articles? All of the other linked state/territory/etc. articles are lists. - Eureka Lott 02:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another edit request[edit]

The group 3 heading should be "Lists [plural] by territories" to match the others, no? Deor (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DC is not a territory[edit]

Hi. The District of Columbia is included as a "territory" under this template, even though it is not. If this template is going to distinguish between "states", "territories", and "associated states", then D.C. should be categorized correctly as the "federal district", "states and federal district", or (hopefully not) "other". Best, epicAdam(talk) 05:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth and not a territory, so that's wrong too. A header "Territories, commonwealths, and districts" is way too long though. Perhaps the three bottom rows (territories, associated states, and other) can be combined into a single "other areas" header?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Puerto Rico is a territory in all but name only. It's still governed under Article 4 of the United States Constitution; the same as all other U.S. territories. The freely associated states are their own sovereign nations. I'd suggest making the categories "States and Federal District", "Territories", and "Other". Best, epicAdam(talk) 19:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do any admins regularly check this spot? Or comment on changes? Best, epicAdam(talk) 21:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request, March 2012[edit]

The "below" section only needs to read Category and Portal, with their respective icons.
That is more the standard these days, and less verbose.
Varlaam (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and would be better. Varlaam (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 07April12[edit]

Please update this template to the sandbox version. It fixes the bodyclass, verbosity in the "below" parameter (and adds the WikiProject), alphabetizes the Topics section, and corrects the sections according to the Political divisions of the United States. Thanks --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please note that you don't need to add leading colons to Portal or Wikipedia links such as [[Portal:National Register of Historic Places|Portal]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places|WikiProject]]. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK!! Thanks much! --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request April 2017[edit]

Please remove the link to the Wikiproject in the "below" section. We should not be linking to the project from mainspace per WP:SELFREF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cabayi (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request July 2018[edit]

In the title of the template, it the abbreviation of "Unites States" should be written as "US" according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
83.228.159.212 (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 30 October 2018[edit]

Add links to category:National Register of Historic Places, commons:category:National Register of Historic Places, and change the wording for the link to the portal. See proposed changes in Template:National Register of Historic Places/sandbox. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: Added the category link. The commons link does not conform to WP:NAVBOX and WP:NAV so I have not added that. Izno (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, I note that the category link was removed 2 years ago. I have no preference on whether that should have been removed (or added), but the request is reasonable (after the fact) and the removal reason is not all that great. Maybe Koavf will have an opinion separate. --Izno (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a strong opinion on this but thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 2 November 2018[edit]

Make the links to the category and portal on the bottom bold, by adding |belowstyle= font-weight:bold; —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Izno (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: Thanks —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 4 January 2019[edit]

The template has a grammatically incorrect line; line labeling registry locations by state should read "...by state", not "...by states". Tyrekecorrea (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — xaosflux Talk 20:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 28 October 2019[edit]

Request that a 'Related' section be added to the bottom of the template, with two entries (a main entry and a subsection):

Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does Template:National Register of Historic Places/sandbox look like what you want? If not, please adjust it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jonesey95. Have moved 'Historic Preservation Fund' to subsection of the Preservation Act (created as part of the act and also relevant to the template topic). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 30 October 2021[edit]

This template currently has a "List of U.S. National Historic Landmarks by state"... Click on them & you find lists of NRHPs. But a NHL is NOT the same as an entry on the NRHPs (National Register of Historic Places). This obvious error should be corrected immediately. 216.164.62.52 (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Historic Places Template request[edit]

Moved from WP:VPR

include:

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@0mtwb9gd5wx: I moved this from VPR. Disucssions about improving single pages, such as this one, rarely need to go to WP:VPR. — xaosflux Talk 13:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 4 December 2022[edit]

Change the text "Morocco" to "American Legation, Tangier, Morocco". The current wording makes it look like a list of multiple listings. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: Changed to "American Legation, Morocco", since "American Legation, Tangier, Morocco" makes no sense as Tangier is a city in Morocco Terasail[✉️] 15:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 1 January 2023[edit]

For the following section of the navbox: 

|group6 = Related
|list6  = 
* [[National Historic Preservation Act of 1966]]
**[[Historic Preservation Fund]]

The "of 1966" needs to be removed to fix a redirect as the page was just moved. – The Grid (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories