Talk:Rosie the Riveter World War II Home Front National Historical Park

A fact from Rosie the Riveter World War II Home Front National Historical Park appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 April 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park (logo pictured) is the first national tribute to home front American women?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/April.

Wikipedia

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Memorials / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military memorials and cemeteries task force
	World War II task force

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mistaken Poster[edit]

On the Rosie the Riveter page, the J. Howard Miller poster states "J. Howard Miller's "We Can Do It!", commonly mistaken to be Rosie the Riveter" yet on this page for the historical park, the caption for the same image directly contradicts that. Which is true? -- Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.51.173 (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would trust the Rosie article since that one is backed up with a source. I edited the caption accordingly here. howcheng {chat} 21:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front 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 https://web.archive.org/20070329014126/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/nr/travel/wwIIbayarea/ric.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/wwIIbayarea/ric.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming[edit]

It looks like this article was renamed to remove the slash without any discussion or sourcing. A similar name tweak, also by @Mdewman6: on Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park just got reverted by @Dcflyer:; I'm not sure exactly how to revert name changes cleanly, so I'll just leave a note here. I do note that the legislation to create the park includes the slash (see https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/house-bill/4063/text ) and that the current NPS website, while it expresses the name in multiple ways, does include the slash in multiple instances on the web pages reachable from https://www.nps.gov/rori/index.htm JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken. I was being bold in trying to tie to official names, but did not consider that the underlying legislation would be different. I am happy to move it back if that is the consensus. I guess this raises the question of whether to adhere to the official name per Congress or the more common name per NPS. But the fact that NPS uses the backslash intermittently suggests its omission is just an abbreviation of sorts. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]