Talk:Cascade–Siskiyou National Monument
Latest comment: 17 days ago by Another Believer in topic Crossing
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cascade–Siskiyou National Monument article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
National Register?
editThe article claims the monument is on the National Register. I searched the NR databases, but did not find any record. (Keep in mind only NPS historic Nat'l Monuments are automatically on the register, BLM NMs are not administratively listed.) — Eoghanacht talk 14:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I see that twice in the last few weeks User:Dmadeo has replaced the {{Infobox protected area}} template on this article with {{Infobox NRHP}}. Both User:Eoghanacht (above) and I (in an edit summary) have advanced arguments why the NRHP infobox is incorrect for this article. I'd like to know the reason for Dmadeo's insistence on treating Cascade–Siskiyou National Monument as an NRHP site, because I see no sourced suppport for this idea at all. — Ipoellet (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, first, sorry, I would not have knowingly done this twice without taking it to the talk page. As part of bringing List of National Monuments of the United States to FLC, I had been making a lot of runs through all the national monuments, especially those near the beginning of the alphabet :) My understanding was that all National Monuments were on the NRHP as well, but I dont have any specific evidence of that belief. Since I do a lot of work with the List of National Natural Landmarkss as well, which are also not listed on the NRHP, I should see about getting the default of NRHP out of that template. Thanks for pointing this out and sorry for causing you any trouble. dm (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- No problem - thanks for being good-natured about it. As long as you don't have an objection, I'll switch the infobox back to {{Infobox protected area}}. Thanks for helping clarify things! — Ipoellet (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
IUCN status
editAccording to data available at National Gap Analysis Program the monument is not assigned a IUCN category. The data includes a statement that the monument is assigned "Gap Status: 3 - managed for multiple uses – subject to extractive (e.g. mining or logging) or OHV use." The Protected Planet webpage indicates that it is a IUCN category III area, but that I don't think it should be considered a reliable source since it is social media service according to [1]. –droll [chat] 21:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)