Talk:James Whitcomb Riley Museum Home

SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MOVED!!!

Instead of moving it, I SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED WHY I NAMED IT AS SUCH. I used "James Whitcomb Riley Museum Home" to

1. prevent confusion with the James Whitcomb Riley House of Greenfield.
2. it is called that in the book "My Indiana:101 Places to See", a publication of the Indiana Historical Society, and in the AAA Tourbook for Indiana
3. it is called that at http://www.rileykids.org/museum/tour/entrance.asp http://www.indy.com/venues/show/5376 and http://www.indy.org/indianapolis/web/jsp/whattodo/detail.jsp?c=7014807:showhide&p=1&x=1202300649179

In other words...IT IS THE ACTUAL NAME!!! Next time, ASK WHY I NAMED IT AS SUCH!!! --Bedford 12:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The main reason, and a valid reason on its own, to move it is that I looked at the "Official Site" given in the article and that reports, after you drill down to the source document a walking tour guide to the Lockerbie district, that it is named James Whitcomb Riley Home. The name J W R Museum Home sounds weird, like it is the home of the museum on James Whitcomb Riley, not a home of JWR himself. So it seems reasonable to go to a more normal, and the official name for the house. doncram (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A separate point than about the name of the article, is what should appear in the NRHP/NHL infobox. The name of the site on the National Register of Historic Places of the United States of America, is "J W R House". The name of the site in the National Historic Landmark program of the United States of America is "J W R House". For both reasons, and for consistency with policy on NRHP infoboxes, it should be J W R House there, no matter whether a different common name for the site is used as the name of the article. doncram (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is better in wikipedia articles to confront the truth straight on (the truth that this is, weirdly, one of 2 sites given the same name by the National Register). It is better in encyclopedia articles not to avoid this truth by coming up with an alternative name that is not in official use by the site. doncram (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the article to my last edit, because I had added NHL webpage reference and a long reference that is the NRHP text PDF file for the site, which was lost in the Undo performed by Bedford. Please do not lose these references. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, checking the asserted uses of the "ACTUAL" name, i do not immediately find the asserted name used at the first link given, which is the website of RileyKids which seems to be a children's hospital which has an affinity for the nearby home of its namesake, but which may be / seems to me to be external to the actual organisation that owns/controls the house. Browsing around within the rileykids site, i do find the name at its [Museum Home - FAQ]. However, the FAQ seems unreliable on other points: it starts off "James Whitcomb Riley Museum Home…Remains the only late-Victorian preservation in the United States." which is surely a false statement. Later it asserts "Was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1963." which is false because a) the National Register was not created until 1966, and b) by the reference to the NHL webpage I document that it was named to a National Historic Landmark in 1962, not 1963. So I do not take this webpage to be an authoritative source. As for the other two links, that are at www.indy.org and www.indy.com, those are attractions site lists that are taking up and repeating an unofficial and awkward name for the site. They are not primary, authoritative sources.

Note, I do not insist that the NRHP/NHL name for the site is necessarily the name used by the current/official owners of the site (I don't know who those are). If they use another name, and that can be documented, then i would be fine with that for the name of the article. The NRHP/NHL name is the only name that should be represented as the NRHP and NHL name for the site, however. doncram (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

new photos and photo uploads needed

The article is illustrated by one of the 3 NRHP photos from 1975. Additional photos, interior and exterior would help. There are high quality photos of interior and exterior available from HABS link just added to article, that could be uploaded to commons and used. Also, new color pictures would help. doncram (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Whitcomb Riley Museum Home. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114011549/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=608&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=608&ResourceType=Building

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) 15:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)