Talk:Palo Alto Battlefield National Historical Park
![]() | The contents of the Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site Act of 1991 page were merged into Palo Alto Battlefield National Historical Park on 28 December 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Palo Alto Battlefield National Historical Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060911174519/http://tps.cr.nps.gov:80/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=620&ResourceType=Site to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=620&ResourceType=Site
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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Status/Infobox
editThis article had some infobox errors related to it's designation which I have tried to clean up. I still haver some questions. This battlefield was listed as a NRHP site in 1960, and in the subset of "outstanding historical significance" National Historic Landmarks. Then in 1978, it became a National Historic Site and in 1990 a National Historic Park.
What are the current designations. I don't believe it is a NHS anymore since it was made a NHP. But is it still simultaneously a NHL, or was that superseded by NHS/NHP?
Depending on the answer to this, the infobox will need more updates. MB 01:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- NHL and NRHP listing status are not superseded by any other actions; there are any number of NHSes and NHPs (or portions thereof) that are one or both of those. Magic♪piano 03:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Magicpiano, OK so it should be NRHP, NHL, & NHP. But rather than removing the NHS designations, wouldn't it be better to keep it but add "delisted_nrhp_type3 = date of redesignation to NHP"? I tried that as a test, and it added the NHS delisting date in the infobox, but did not seem to turn the NHS header grey and add "former". Perhaps it only does that with NRHP. But since it supports delisting dates for additional titles, shouldn't it provide full support? MB 16:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- You have to use "formernhs" as type. See my recent edit. Magic♪piano 17:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Magicpiano OK, there are sure a lot of combinations of parameters. I added the NHS delisting date to make it clear in the infobox the sequence, but it does show the same date twice. Feel free to revert if you think this is overkill. MB 18:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Another issue is that last month, another editor changed the infobox from Protected Area to NRHP. Since the NRHP infobox can be embedded with PA, I propose to do that. I have looked at some other of the NHP articles and see some use NRHP, some use Protected Area, and some embed. Since all NHP are automatically considered NRHP, shouldn't they all be Protected area/embedded NRHP? MB 18:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)