Jump to content

Talk:List of National Historic Sites of Canada in Ontario

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Separate lists for Toronto and Ottawa

[edit]

As I slowly converted this list into table form, the article size is getting up there, and soon will be too large (this will likely be a problem as well when I convert the Quebec list -- the other provinces and territories shouldn't be a problem). I have created separate lists for Toronto and Ottawa, the province's two largest cities with large numbers of NHSCs in each, so as to try and keep the Ontario list manageable. While Niagara region may also warrant be separated out, if the Ontario list is still too long by the time the conversion is complete, I ask that no one create any new lists until the conversion is done. I'm not sure that any new "sub-lists" will even be required. I don't think the reader benefits from breaking down the Ontario list any more than it needs to be (and I note that the American example is to simply break away a large city or cities where a list becomes too long (see, for example, List of National Historic Landmarks in New York), but not to break lists down into too many component parts). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separated out Niagara as well, the next largest concentration of sites, as predicted above.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Kingston, Hamilton. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sites in the Park System unidentified

[edit]

It would be of great help to somehow identify which NHS's are part of the national park system. A while back, when there was a List of National Historic Sites, I added the Parks Canada beaver logo to the 155 or so properties in the System. Those disappeared after the logo was removed from the Commons. But it left an unsatisfactory situation whereby readers have no idea which NHS's are in the system, and which are not. Some distinction could be made, either on the lists of Sites by province/territory, or perhaps by creating a new list of Parks Canada NHS's, similar to the List of National Parks. Yoho2001 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good idea. Now that you mention it, I do remember the beaver logo on the old list. I'd forgotten that. First, though, we need a source for the proposition that the NHSs managed by Parks Canada are part of the National Park System - I don't doubt it, but something like that needs to be explicitly sourced. Second, as for logos, on the Commons we are using File:Beaver 1 (PSF)(retouched).png, since the Parks Canada logo is copyrighted -- see here for an example of its use. If you think it's a good idea, you could add that logo to each site, at about 25px I suppose (in the table, I'd add it right after the site name and the references). At that scale, it is evocative of the Parks Canada logo.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It will be easy enough to show that there are 157 or so NHSs in the national park system. The beaver drawing is an inspired compromise, but somewhat unsatisfactory, in part because I notice extensive use of a related mark, the US NPS arrowhead symbol. There are several tags on the image file (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-NationalParkService-ShadedLogo.svg ) and I wonder if there are parallel justifications we can source to be able to employ the Parks Canada beaver. Failing that, it might be fun to use a historic logo or insignia, but the current one would be preferred. Yoho2001 (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the NPS logo is public domain because all works of the U.S. government are public domain. In contrast, works of the Canadian government are subject to crown copyright. I do a lot of work at the Commons, and this different treatment in the two countries always annoys me. I share your frustration. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder - you need to find a source for the assertion that Parks Canada-managed NHSCs are part of the National Parks System.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave it a shot, and the Parks Canada site lists National Parks and NHSCs separately, and maps them separately as well. The National Parks System Plan also does not state that NHSCs are part of the National Parks System. That was only a quick look at some Parks Canada stuff, and isn't necessarily conclusive. I believe the statement may be true, but we need to soyrce it. You may be able to find something. In the meantime, we should not be adding this to any of the lists or the main article until we have a reliable, unambiguous source upon which we can rely for this assertion. If I have time later today, I will give it another shot to see if I can find something. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HSMB names not official?

[edit]

On each list of NHS's across the country, this line appears: "This list uses the designation names as recognized by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, not necessarily the official or colloquial names of the sites."

I would think the HSMB names are the official ones. Are there other official ones which the HSMB does not recognize? I find this confusing.

Interestingly, sometimes the title of a federal historical marker at a NHS does not use the official HSMB name. Fort Norfolk NHS, for example, does not appear on the HSMB plaque at that site. It's title is "Turkey Point". Yoho2001 (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Often the name of the NHS designation, the official name and the colloquial name are one and the same, but not always. For example, the Calgary mansion designated as a NHS as Beaulieu (the original name when constructed) operates and is better known as Lougheed House. The Former Ottawa Teachers' College is now officially known as the Heritage Building, and most Ottawans would probably just refer to it as the Elgin Street wing of city hall. The Diefenbunker / Central Emergency Government Headquarters designation name is an amalgam of the facility`s official and colloquial names, and thus differs from both. Etc. etc. Most often the NHS designation name is simply outdated, but other times the HSMB came up with names (due to a variety of circumstances) that were neither official nor commonly used. The HSMB will occasionally change the designation name (e.g. Toronto Power Generating Station used to be Electrical Development Company Generating Station and Powerhouse), which may explain some of the plaque discrepencies you noted above. Hope that helps.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That helps clarify things. I think the confusion centers around the word "official", at least for me. An HSMB designation is official, though as you say it may differ from other designations, official and otherwise. How about this reworking of the disclaimer: This list uses official names designated by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, which may differ from other designated or colloquial names for the sites. Yoho2001 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The designation is official (in one sense of the word), but isn't necessarily an official name. Legally, the feds can't impose an "official" name on a site they don't own through a NHS designation. And I am not sure it is quite right to refer to those other names as "designations". But you're right that the whole thing can be confusing. Would it be better to simply say: "This list uses the designation names as recognized by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, which may differ from other names for ths sites." Just avoid the word official completely, because it clearly causes confusion. What do you think? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that avoiding 'official' is wise. Using your suggestion, I've tightened it a bit: "This list uses names designated by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, which may differ from other names for these sites." How's that? It could be used on all applicable pages. It's interesting, too, that the name of HSMB sites can differ from the HSMB plaques at those sites, e.g., the cairn at Fort Norfolk NHS bears a plaque whose title is "Turkey Point". If the list is not concerned about plaques, perhaps this doesn't need to be noted. Still, many times a federal plaque is all that marks a NHS, so it's something to consider. Yoho2001 (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. I saw you added the reference to Turkey Point in the list, but everything in these lists is sourced. As per WP:V and WP:OR, a reliable source needs to be provided for every point before it is added. Sorry to be such a stickler on this, but the only way that these lists can be markedly improved is to adhere to Wikipedia policy. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, where did you find coord for Beechcroft and Lakehurst Gardens? I couldn't for the life of me find any useful/informative sources for that site, so was delighted to see you find at least that piece of information. Either your Google skills are superior to my own, or you are familiar with the site already. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That simpler clarification about names is itself much clearer. About Turkey Point, I see you moved the note to the 'name' column, which works fine, and is easier to find. I appreciate your dedication to sourcing, and it applies well to an alternate name like this. It's coincidental you source a website I often use, run by a man I know, pointing to a page I created. I suppose I could have sourced myself LOL.
About the References lists generally, it might be nice to abbreviate lengthy repetitive ones which cite the same website (notably the Directory of Designations of National Historic Significance). I'm sure we can find a list which includes them all, and simply cite one source, leaving the list much cleaner.
Regarding Beechcroft and Lakehurst, I used Google to find a Georgina map (not helpful for a specific location), but then found coordinates by the same authors associated with locations mentioned on that map. I plan to explore the sites sometime, but their location at the point did make sense. I hope you aren't thinking of noting source material for each coordinate on every list--too many numbers!--but that would be consistent.  :) Yoho2001 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that there are a few NHSCs that have changed names over the years, so that there are old plaques, or other older materials, that refer to the older designation name. Rainy River Mounds is another one here in Ontario. Turkey Point was designated and plaqued in the 1920s - I wonder what prompted that name change in the intervening decades.

I saw the comment on the Plaques website page, and did think you might've been involved.

There may be a way to consolidate sources. The problem is that someone should be able to click a link and be taken to the appropriate listing, rather than to a general database that they can search. However, there might be a way around that, like you suggest. Typically, coordinates aren't usually sourced, even in GA and FA articles. WP:V doesn't require a source for basic, obvious facts, like the fact that Margaret Trudeau is a woman or the Atlantic Ocean is, in fact, an ocean. I guess coordinates, unless someone challenges them, fall into that category.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"of Canada" not needed

[edit]

The title of this and other List pages of NHS's use "of Canada", and I want to suggest it's not necessary, nor so often used in the body of each article. While "of Canada" is part of the legal name of each site, it's often redundant and repetitious. The official appendage was made only in the last few years. "National" implies these sites are of, and in, the nation. Since each page title refers to the province or a region, that clarifies their location. Beyond that, it's rather wordy. (Personally, I find it a little self-conscious and insecure.) By comparison, take a look at the numerous lists of National Historic Landmarks by US state. Though each is "of the United States", those words are wisely not added. The state names suggest enough location information, just as Ontario, Toronto, Ottawa and Niagara Region do. Yoho2001 (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the official name. While we need not refer to the full name throughout articles, it is appropriate for titles, lead paragraphs, the first reference in an article, etc.. Moreover, since so many NHSCs pertain to aspects of history that involve the United States (European colonization, War of 1812, Underground Railroad, etc. etc.), and the U.S. has an identically named program, the specification is useful. More importantly, many NHSCs are located in a province (Quebec) where the term "national" is ambiguous. The term is not redundant. I know that you personally prefer to remove country references from articles (you once told me they were unnecessary because "if a reader has any doubt, it's easy to look up"), but it's basic, fundamental information. I note that elsewhere, even on Government of Canada sites and publications, both terms are used, so this isn't even a case of WP:COMMONNAME, because the full official term is equally commonly used. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To add “of Canada” partly because Quebec and others may use the word ‘national’ suggests the tail is wagging the dog. ‘National Hockey League’ is fine, without adding “of Canada and the United States of America”. If geographic subdivisions use ‘national’ decades after first being used to describe these historic sites, the onus would be to qualify their names, not the federal ones.
If you look at the legislation creating NHS’s, I don't think you'll see the words “of Canada”. They may have been added retroactively by a single bill, affecting their legal name. Though Parks Canada employs the changed name (unevenly), they’re known mainly without the appendage, and have been for the great majority of their history. I'd opt to leave the suffix off sub-national pages (for each province, etc.). but leave it on the main page simply for global clarification. Using country names in articles is fine, but not to the point of overkill.
I notice innumerable articles which refer to places in the US without the country name, and we’re quite comfortable with that, leaving state names as a sufficient locator (US favoritism maybe?). Yet on pages with Cdn. references, it’s as if editors don’t think things are complete without adding the country name. There’s a certain insecurity reflected in that, despite the fact provinces are, in most cases, vastly larger than US states.
As well, I’ve noticed a near obsession in Canada with adding “Canada” or “Canadian” to myriad names—from federal departments to national museums to companies and organizations. It’s as if there’s a country-wide reflex to add them, even in place of terms that would grant us relief from their repetition, such as Federal or National. Employing the Canada/Canadian term at every turn reflects a disquieting doubt, as if we constantly need to explain or assure ourselves. In the face of this, the national park system has been a bastion of federal nomenclature I’ve long relished, not least because it projects confidence in not having to constantly explain that these sites are Canadian. It's a given.
Besides, official legal names can be unwieldy. “Bois Blanc Island Lighthouse and Blockhouse National Historic Site” is long enough, no? Rhode Island's official name is The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, but common usage and its Wikipedia page title use "Rhode Island". There’s not even a country name. Thankfully, the same goes for Manitoba; no "Canada". That clean, confident style could well extend to "National Historic Sites in Manitoba", et al., especially because they are sub-lists. It’s succinct and looks good. Yoho2001 (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't call it the "National Hockey League of Canada" or the "National Hockey League of the United States" not because it's "fine" not to do so, but because that's not what it's called. In contrast, National Historic Site of Canada is the official name, and it's a name that is used all the the time. We don't rename things here on Wikipedia because of someone's personal and subjective views as to what makes cleaner copy. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there were a need to clarify that the NHL was of the US and Canada, those words would be added, likely in parentheses, whether or not it's the official name of the organization. You see this in several places on Wikipedia, to disambiguate. But because all sub-lists for 'National Historic Sites' are already qualified with a location, such as Manitoba, etc., there's no need to disambiguate them.
Whether or not 'of Canada' is part of the official name, the page names of sub-lists and subsequent references would reflect common usage without the tag. Besides, there are examples of official names which are not reflected in page names, e.g., Rhode Island. If justification is needed, there are many historic and modern official sources which show NHS names without the appendage, and can be cited. The point isn't so much over what's official, it's a combination of what's commonly used to refer to these places, as well as editorial clarity. We wisely omit the French names of each NHS, though they are equally official. Yoho2001 (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need disambiguation because the actual name already does it for us. Here the official name is widely and commonly used, thus we legitimately use it in articles. We don't ignore facts for editorial clarity. Rhose Island is not really a valid comparable, because the full name of that state is not widely used whatsover - apples and oranges. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping we might have agreement soon hehe. Interestingly, voters in Rhode Island recently reaffirmed their long official name. You were saying "of Canada" needs to be attached because it's official. Rhode Island is one example of how an official name is not used, which permits us to consider using 'National Historic Sites of <province/territory>', at least on sub-lists.
We agree there's no need for disambiguation. Sub-list page names like 'National Historic Sites in Ontario' do the job nicely. The "of Canada" tag is used by official sources because they are told to do so, not because it reflects common usage. The National Register of Historic Places confirms they are bound to use the official name by directive. They have no choice. We do. Also, for the vast majority of their existence, sites did not have the tag appended, even officially, so there's a long tradition of common use which reflects its absence. Numerous current brochures and maps show site names without it, making the style widely and commonly used.
We do omit facts for clarity, leaving unsaid what is self-evident. These sites are "of America" and "of Earth" as well, but we leave those out, factual though they are. If you're suggesting the geographic cut-off be the country, would you advocate 'National Historic Landmarks of the United States in Ohio'? I'd say there's no need for the country name in the title of such a sub-list.
Considering all, and because the main list has "of Canada" in its title (which I suggest be preserved), we can comfortably use 'National Historic Sites' paired with the name of a province or territory. Yoho2001 (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed this discussion for some time now. While Yoho's thoughts on editorial clarity, wordiness and self-conciousness are well expressed, they are personal perceptions and preferences. Wikipedia content is decided by facts. The fact here is that "National Historic Site of Canada" is the official name, and it is also commonly used (it is completely different from "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations", which is an obscure legal name, or National Historic Landmark which doesn't have an official name containing the name of the country). "National Historic Site", an abbreviation of the name, is also commonly used. This isn't a case where the short form, or abbreviated name, is used to the exclusion of the actual, full name. Given these facts, the well-used actual/official/full name should be used in titles, on templates, the first reference in the text of an article, external links, etc. (I agree with Skeezix on this point). After that, for ongoing references throughout an article, the short/abbreviated form can be used (I agree with Yoho on this point) - at that point, it's really an editorial decision. That's the standard approach on Wikipedia, and I don't see any reason to deviate. I seem to recall that there is a few too many "of Canada"s in the main article on this topic. --Ontario Max (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Yoho2001 has already taken care of those (last week? Memory fails me at this moment). I don't have a problem with that.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Skeezix, thanks—there are few more I'd like to take care of! hehe Hi Ontario Max. Nice to hear another voice on the subject. I'm not disputing a fact about the official name of a site, I'm saying it would be preferable to leave out the "of Canada" portion of the technically legal name. It's rather self-evident that these sites are all in Canada, and because these lists of provincial and territorial groups are sub-lists of the main one, it's safe to say National Historic Sites of Ontario, etc. As far as common use, 'National Historic Site' has been used for the better part of a century, and is a well-established custom. The relatively recent addition of "of Canada" is one promulgated by official publications (because it was an official decision), but not by common parlance, and many times not even by official publications themselves. I would not advise using a true abbreviated, shorthand version, such as "NHS" for titles, first references, etc., but 'National Historic Site' is expansive and explanatory. Wikipedia often employs commonly-referenced names, with official names sometimes noted in the article or its footnotes. This is not a suggestion for exceptional deviation. There are other reasons to leave "of Canada" off—It lengthens already long names, and can be redundant, e.g., Bank of Upper Canada Building National Historic Site of Canada; Canadian Bank of Commerce National Historic Site of Canada. Yikes! Yoho2001 (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. With all due respect, I think all those points have been responded to several times over now. Yes, Wikipedia employs common names that differ from official names, where usage quite clearly prefers that alternate name. I think it has been pointed out many times now that the full official name here is commonly used, so there is no need or benefit here of deviating from the actual name. When the concept is referred to more than once in an article, the shortened name can be used. And I'm talking about references to the designation itself - I don't think anyone is suggesting "Bank of Upper Canada Building National Historic Site of Canada" as a title for an article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pics, Globe, Waterloo, Cites, Notes

[edit]

I have photos of NHS's that could fill gaps here, unless there's a preference to use Commons images or those from elsewhere.

After adding several geographic coordinates, I noticed the blue globe does not appear next to each, as it did for earlier entries, despite following the same format. What's the trick?

Waterloo Pioneers Memorial Tower is listed here as a NHS, but the HSMB Directory of Designations lists it as Waterloo Pioneers, an Event, not a Site. I filled in the designation date and geographic coordinates anyway. It's an odd 'event', really. It's on land owned and maintained by the national park service, signed like a regular park system site, yet it's not a site. Or is it? Parks Canada has individual web pages which call it a NHS, but the agency's own list of sites it operates does not list it. Weird. Maybe leave it here for the time being, until the Events list gets going. That will be another mega project. But it would interesting to sort this one out.

Someone inserted a request for a citation in the lead paragraph, after I noted Ontario had more NHS's and park service-operated sites than any other province/territory, with a high concentration in southern Ontario. The numbers comments come from observation of these already well-cited lists, of which this page is one. The concentration comment comes from having looked at Parks Canada maps which show, unmistakably, the highest numbers in the southern Ontario–southern Quebec area, indeed the densest region in the country. The maps 'say' it, but visually, not by word. I realize Wikipedia steers away from statements of fact based on personal observation, but if an already-cited source says there are two apples and three oranges, can't a writer conclude there are more oranges, without having to cite a source?

This page is certainly replete with footnotes, as it is. Multiple entries, some including simple names, have two and three notes each. May I suggest not getting carried away. Perhaps notes can be made more efficient by citing the two or three most oft-cited sources once, noting that all NHS's can be found there, alphabetically, for example. I appreciate the desire to direct readers to each and every page, individually, but it creates a list of notes that competes with the length of the list itself. And, with notation numbers now reaching the three hundreds, some NHS names are followed by superscripts of 15 characters. Too much. Yoho2001 (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. To respond in order:

1. Any photos you would have would be awesome. Upload them to the Commons and insert them at will! I have had no luck finding freely-licensed photos for some of these entries. Generally, images which are taller than they are wide seem to look better in the chart, but that might be a subjective thing, and frankly beggars can't be choosers. Just a word of caution - there is some controversy over at Commons (and here on en-wp) about photos of plaques (where all that is visible is the plaque and the text - I'm not talking about photos where a plaque is visible in the image among other objects) - the suggestion is that the text is copyrighted even if the photo is freely-licensed. Except for older plaques, it's best to stay away from images that are strictly plaque text.

2. I have no idea about the globe. I'm not expert, but let me think about that.

3. i have no doubt the lists are full of errors. I check each entry as I come across it, and hadn't hit Waterloo Pioneers Memorial Tower yet. Tango corrected a number of similar errors on the Quebec list. You should feel free to correct errors when you see them.

3. I added the fact tag. My edit comment should have been clearer - sorry. It has nothing to do with the overall numbers (all of which is well sourced). It had to do with the description of them being a dense concentration, which struck me as subjective and relative. But you're right - there's a link right next to the text to the google map showing what is meant by "dense" - so I was probably being unnecessarily over-cautious.

4. The problem is that inline citations are supposed to be to pinpoint references, not to general websites where someone can look something up. And just to be clear, the citations aren't just acting as sources for the names, but for all the information in the chart related to that site. I did, however, once before promise you that I would look into this, and never did. I will. That's my fault. Part of it is a factor of it being a long list. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I did look into item #4 way back in March, then prompty got pulled away from working on this for months. There is no specific guidance for lists (that I could find), other than the general rules about sourcing key information. Some lists do simply provide one source for all items on the list, but others source each item, and I am not sure how the former helps any. The former approach would also not work for the CRHP, which often has several entries for any given site (only one of which pertains to the NHSC), and it has a terrible search function. To the extent the list of cites here is overly lengthy, and I am not sure that it is, it is a product of a list that itself is probably overly lengthy. Kingston and Hamilton (the two next largest clusters) should probably be broken off into separate lists. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I ought not to have spoken so soon, after not having thought about the issue since March. While the CRHP doesn't lend itself to one overall citation, the Parks Canada directory doesn't present the same problem. That would reduce the cites by roughly half, the main benefit of which is that it makes room to add additional references, so the lists aren't so overwhelmingly reliant on two sources. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sites, Events, Persons

[edit]

The line regarding National Historic Events and Persons is helpful. A note was added to ensure readers are aware that what might be assumed to be a Site could be an Event, and vice versa. If looking for a subject to see if it's federally commemorated, the note is an advisory to check the other list(s). As well, the public plaques associated with each of the three designations do not clarify whether one is a Site, Event, or Person. Sometimes persons' names on the markers actually identify a Site or Event. It is helpful to have a note to alert readers to this. After some discussion, I believe consensus was reached that such notes were appropriate. They were added to the National Historic Events and Persons pages some time ago, and would be similarly helpful on Sites pages. Based on that, I'm reinserting the text. Yoho2001 (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Missing from the list:

[edit]

Bead Hill Site - Along the rouge river- it isn't accessible or identified in anyway to the public, so maybe that's why it isn't there, i don't know. But if you wiki "Bead Hill" it tells you about it; I don't know if it was left off for that or whatever reason though.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of National Historic Sites of Canada in Ontario. 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, 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) 21:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of National Historic Sites of Canada in Ontario. 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, 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) 14:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London: Wolseley Barracks or Wolseley Hall?

[edit]

This page names "Wolseley Barracks" as NHSC site; click the link and we read "Wolseley Hall" was designated NHSC site in 1963. Is the historic site one building or the entire property? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbax (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_National_Historic_Sites_of_Canada_in_Ontario&oldid=1208272020"