Talk:United States national monuments

Too many markers

There are 130 national monuments, of which this article seems to contain about 110. This means that we're above the 99-marker limit, so we need to use different-colored markers in some way. One idea would be to split them into historic/cultural monuments (like the Statue of Liberty) and natural monuments (like Jewel Cave), though there are a few monuments that seem to fall into both categories, like Scotts Bluff. Another option would be to divide them by region. Thoughts? —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I like dividing by region; it's also a good compromise with Ground Zero's suggestion. But then you've got to decide on the regions and where the boundaries are, which isn't so easy. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Why would we ue any regional breakdown other than that used in United States of America, which was developed by community consensus? Ground Zero (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

If we do split them by region, I agree that it's best to use the same regional breakdown as in the US article. But if it's feasible, I'd prefer to split them by type or in some other way that provides value to the reader. Assigning colors by region provides no extra value that I can see, since the locations are already displayed on the map and the article is divided into sections by region. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I took a stab at it: green for natural monuments, gray for historic monuments, and maroon for prehistoric monuments. In some cases there were some judgement calls (for instance, for monuments that have both nature and historic sites). Feel free to change them if you disagree. Or we can try a different split if this one seems too arbitrary. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the color coding needs to be explained. It's unclear to the reader why the colors are different. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. I'll do the same for the historic areas article when I have the chance. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument

Does this article cover marine monuments too, or was the scope of this article only to cover national monuments on land? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems fine to mention them. This one is reasonable to have its own brief article as it does, because several islands within it have their own articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Should w:Marianas Trench Marine National Monument also be listed? It's a internationally well-known place, but I don't think a traveler can visit the monument. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

To my knowledge it is not visitable, which is why I didn't list it in this article when I added the listings a few years ago. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I would list it, because travellers may come here looking for information, with an explanation that it can't be visited. Ground Zero (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Good point. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. List everything, but don't create articles unless there could be enough travel-relevant content to insert into them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I actually only created the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument article only because it was on UNESCO's tentative list. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Like I said in the Pub, it's reasonable to have a little article for that, because there are articles for all of those constituent islands. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Guide does not distinguish National Monuments operated by agencies other than NPS

The first sentence of this article is factually inaccurate:

The United States National Monuments are part of the United States National Park System.

To be clear, some National Monuments are operated by the National Park Service. These National Monuments are likely to have park amenities like visitor centers, and you often have to pay a fee to enter. The remainder of the National Monuments are managed by other federal agencies (mostly BLM and USFS) and are typically not attractive to the average tourist, other than perhaps a drive-through. Any extended visitors in these areas are probably backcountry hikers (or in the case of Marine National Monuments, boaters).

I think the federal agency that operates a National Monument is a good proxy for what sort of experience you will have visiting the park. Currently, they're color-coded green, gray and maroon for natural monuments, historic monuments, and prehistoric monuments respectively. I propose we color-code them instead based on the operating federal agency: green for NPS, brown for USFS, maroon for BLM, gray for others, and blue for anything marine. Clorox (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

If we color-code them based on management, I'm almost certain that we're going to run into the 99 limit problem. There are few anyway, so maybe perhaps adding something like <span style="color:#156b0c"><abbr title="Bureau of Land Management operated park">BLM</abbr></span> producing BLM might work (and you can do something similar with USFS-operated parks too). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I've set up a proposed rewrite of this article. There are only 85 monuments operated by the NPS, so I didn't run into the limit. Thoughts? Clorox (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)