Talk:Contributing property

Little Red Schoolhouse

I am going to red link this Little Red Schoolhouse, it's screaming for an article. IvoShandor 11:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well whaddya know? It would have to be disambiguated, as there's at least three others specifically listed on the NRHP. Check it out! So it'd probably be better as Little Red Schoolhouse (Newberry, Florida). I can always get more pics as well, since Newberry's only about an hour away. I'm thinking that articles (or at least stubs) should be created for the others before something's created for a mere contributing property, doncha know. :) -Ebyabe 18:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Others? Do clarify? Other properties on the Register in Newberry? The district? Whatcha mean senor? : ) IvoShandor 19:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Click on the check it out link above, dude! ;) --Ebyabe 19:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I gotcha. I clicked, just wasn't sure. But you know me, I can stub those in no time flat. Oh yeah. I am now going to post sumpin' on yo' talk page. IvoShandor 19:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Property"

The term "property" is very ambiguous and thus its use, particularly in the definitive singular ("a property") should be avoided. Strictly speaking, "property" is a collective term, the way "money" is; "a property" is thus analogous to "a money". As used by real estate agents, the term is approximately defined (consider the source) as "a parcel of real estate, usually including one or more structures"; this is sometimes extended to mean only the principal structure. However, that there are all these possible definitions is a cry for more distinction. Thus, it would be better to refer to a "structure", a "building", or a "lot", or even a historic "resource" depending on what is actually meant. The National Historic Preservation Act refers to "contributing building" (16 USC 470a(a)(1)(A)). --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Almost every single NRHP document I've seen has referred to contributing and non-contributing property. I'm pretty sure the term has legal use in this circumstance. Of course, open to changes with proper sourcing.IvoShandor (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Resource is good though. As long as we leave the qualfier, "or contributing property" in the lead or whatever. We should make sure not to use "structure" or "building" though as the NRHP has specific definitions that apply to "structure", "building", "object", and "site".IvoShandor (talk) 05:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

dead link to nps

^ a b c d e f g h "Early Models," Working on the Past in Local Historic Districts, National Park Service. Retrieved 23 April 2007. This link is dead. Loopy48 (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that situation. Actually, I had already noticed -- today -- (way after you added your comment, but before I turned to this "Talk:" page) that the link in question was a dead one. The link in question points (from the "<ref>" tag for footnote number "[1]") to the URL http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/workingonthepast/earlymodels.htm .

(That link -- in footnote number "[1]" -- which is now a dead link, has apparently existed for almost 16 years -- [since it says "Retrieved 23 April 2007"]; -- and, after seeing the ["2010"] date on your comment, [and doing the math], it appears that the link has been dead for more than at least about 12 [and a quarter] of those years.)

My intention is to remedy the dead link by including an "archive-url" field in the "<ref>" tag for footnote number "[1]", ... with a value of [something like] https://web.archive.org/web/20070609180638/http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/workingonthepast/earlymodels.htm real soon now (like, ... today).
(A field saying "| url-status = dead" will also be in order.)

I hope this helps. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

 – now fixed

(as discussed above)
(including a long-winded "EDIT comment")

Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Contributing property. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.state.sc.us/scdah/NRhdQ%26A.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061223152651/http://icgov.org/pcd/urbanplanning/historicpreservation/handbook/appendices.pdf to http://www.icgov.org/pcd/urbanplanning/historicpreservation/handbook/appendices.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810201903/http://wakeforestnc.gov/historic_districts.aspx to http://www.wakeforestnc.gov/historic_districts.aspx

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

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)