Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota

Quality rating of article, within WP:NRHP
The article is nearing completion in some ways: it is a complete list of the 22 NHLs in Minnesota and there's now a photo for each one. To open a discussion, I just assigned the article Stub rating within WP:NRHP.

Consistent with a proposal on "Quality rating of lists" and "Quality rating of NHL articles" within Talk page of WP:NRHP, I view this article currently as a Stub within WP:NRHP. It is more substantial than any mere list, so needs to be shown as an article not a list (and can be promoted to class=Start, then class=B, then Class=FL.

There's other room for improvement in the subsidiary articles, per criteria proposed at WP:NRHP. For example, only the first two articles on the list include as references the basic NRHP and/or NHL nomination text and photo links that are available, which is a proposed requirement to hold Start rating in WP:NRHP articles. Others need to have such references added, or arguably merit only Stub rating.

The overall list needs all subsidiary articles to have Start rating, though, to attain "B" rating itself, by the proposal. To attain "Start" rating for the overall list, there needs to be at least a "Stub" for each article. As currently some of the articles are redlinks only, the overall list is limited to "Stub" rating for now.

Comments welcome. doncram 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on this. We're getting there; I'll try to get those nomination texts cited.--Appraiser 14:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to find the nomination forms for the Kathio Site (66000403), the Plummer Building (69000075), or the St. Croix Recreational Demonstration Area (96001594). Any idea where to find them?--Appraiser 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To look for those, i visit National Register search site and search on all available for the entire state of Minnesota. It turns up a lot of sites:  most of the NHLs and some other prominent sites, perhaps NHL candidates that didn't make it.  Most normal NRHPs are not covered.  The St. Croix Rec Dem Area that you ask about is available under refnum 97001261 at 	text and photos.  Corresponding to the first two are a "Kathio" site and a "Mayo Clinic Buildings" that show up in the search but the system provides no valid link to text or photos, indicating that reports exist but are not made available on-line.  Archaeological sites like the Kathio site are sometimes entirely withheld, or sometimes made available in redacted form.  I can't imagine why the "Mayo Clinic Buildings" item would not be made available, but it is not, perhaps just a technical glitch in their system.  You can send an email request to NPS to get copies sent by postal mail, for no charge (as you can do for any NRHP site). Some states (e.g. Illinois) have their own website with all their NRHP and NHL documents scanned.  If it's not available on-line though, my view is that an article can get "Start" rating without it, you just have to indicate the document is not available on-line in the talk page discussion of the article rating.  They are highly relevant documents, definitive on the significance of the site for NHL designation, often the only definitive source on the area covered by the NHL designation.  The NHL summary webpage for each one, on the other hand, usually is just a very brief summary based on this document, the real source.  Hope this helps.  doncram 19:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Appraiser I see you are adding the NHL nomination text and photos to articles, thank you for doing that. FYI, I made small edits to those references for the Washburn "A" Mill article, to show how I would prefer to show the PDF filesizes for those, plus to use the NHL summary reference to support the NHL date in the infobox.  Note I move the NRIS reference to support the NRHP date, in contrast (esp. as the NRIS reference no longer supports the entire NRHP infobox).  Looking good.  I am afraid you can beat my pet project List of National Historic Landmarks in New York to the finish line for FL status, if you want to. :)  By all means, go for it... doncram 23:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Got your reply to my Talk page. The NRHP add date source including month and day as well as year that i and some others use is from NRIS itself, but via the Elkman infobox generator. That really generates reports off a single download of NRIS data that Elkman accessed.  I dunno if PDF filesizes matter all that much for rating purposes say, but on my DSL connection, I can see the difference in download times according to filesizes, so I have been believing it is a helpful thing to indicate. Cheers, doncram 00:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) This page now is really close to earning "B-class" rating, even by the relatively tough rating proposal for NRHP list-type-articles that was discussed at WP:NRHP, and since archived. A restated version of the proposal is at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Assessment. The main thing remaining here is that a few MN NHL articles are still rated as Stub articles on their own. For B-rating of this last, each needs to be brought up to Start quality rating individually. The F. Scott Fitzgerald House article is rated Stub but could be re-rated as Start already, perhaps, although a little more writing would help. The Frank B. Kellogg House article is rated Stub and remains really just a stub (the article is shorter than its description in the list page). Anyhow, just a bit of editing on those, and any others still rated Stub, and the MN list would be the first NHL list to get B-Class rating. doncram (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I went through all the articles and up-rated the remaining 5 or 6 that were at Stub to Start now. They are at least that.  It is okay for a Start article to have some outstanding questions, i understand better now.  So I also up-rate this List-article to B-class now for NRHP.  It is nice work.`doncram (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

HABS photos
Photos and text documentation of many of the MN NHLs are available at Historic American Buildings Survey, as has been shown already by addition of selected photos to some of the sites. I just added links from the Rabideau CCC Camp article to its many HABS photo sets, into its External Links section. There are even more HABS photo sets available for Fort Snelling. Another example of an NHL article having many HABS links is Croton Aqueduct, in NYS. I think adding HABS links helps, but I am not sure of the best way to format these, especially when there are so many separate HABS photo sets for different structures on one site. I guess I would just put them all in, let it be a long list, baring any better idea. -- doncram (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sequence
I'm thinking about alphabetizing this list. Do you think the order should be by last name or first (Andrew or Volstead)? Or perhaps it should be by date added to the NHL? Currently they are alphabetized by county.--Appraiser (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Check what the NRHP WikiProject prefers. I'll check that the table is sortable.  Yup, it's sortable.  Alpha by whatever name seems best is fine with me.  According to m:Help:Sorting you can affect the sorting by preceding the column with a hidden sort key (the desired sortation name) wrapped in  ...  .  Or just add a numeric column to the start of all the entries.  -- SEWilco (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Two relevant examples are List of National Historic Landmarks in New York and List of National Historic Landmarks in California. Both use the numbering and ordering system pioneered by Ipoellet in the California one.  Numbered order is alphabetical on significant word, for example would put Andrew Volstead House among the V's.  The New York one uses different color scheme, actually non-colored, in the header, that to me seems more readable.


 * Another difference is that New York gives a sortable "Date designated" column, giving exact day of NHL, using the one full date format that is sortable. It took some research to figure out which date format would work.  The California list gives Year, which is sortable, and the year reported is a mix of NRHP listing year vs. NHL designation year (it needs to be checked and cleaned up to be all NHL year or full NHL date).  The present Minnesota one, give just Year listed, here apparently meaning year designated NHL.  For readers who will like to hit the sort button and play a sorting game, having the full exact day date designated is more satisfying, I think.  And it would integrate better with the overall List of National Historic Landmarks by state.  A sorter person can sort there, find which state has the very oldest or newest designation date, then go to the state page and sort on the day date column in that.  Currently, the overall list gives specific earliest and latest day dates for the state of Minnesota, but then the Minnesota list provides just the year.  It's not a terribly thrilling game for adults to play, but I like to provide for it. :) doncram (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "chuckle". Thanks for your well-thought-out answer. I'll tackle this another day.--Appraiser (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I added full dates from using the format used in List of National Historic Landmarks in New York. Unfortunately it sorts the dates alphabetically by month&mdash;not very much fun for those playing the sorting game. I'll add a column for default sorting next. If someone knows what date format would work better, let me know (Julian calendar perhaps?)--Appraiser (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How about the ISO format YYYY-MM-DD? Testing presentation with July 4 of this year when wikilinked: 2008-07-04 -- SEWilco (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The format used in NYS article is "20 Jan", "2005", etc. rather than "20 January", "2005". It cuts month name down to 3 characters.  First entry in NYS list  happens to be in May, "04 May" "1983" so it is not obvious that the date format generally is cut down to 3 characters.  I changed it in this Minnesota list and it sorts fine now I think.  If someone wants to notify the programmers of the wikitable sorting algorithm, and ask for fix so that it would sort more generally, you can, but this works. doncram (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's still not working for me - perhaps a browser or OS issue?--Appraiser (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is just a browser cache type issue for u that will go away when you log off and reboot and come back. Does NYS date sorting work for you? doncram (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I get all Aprils, then Augusts, then Decembers, etc.--Appraiser (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have heard of no OS or browser issues or any other sorting issues in the NYS list page. Anyhow, using Mozilla Firefox, on Windows XP, the NYS List and this MN List both sort properly for me when I click on the date sort request symbol at the top of their date columns.  Could others report if those are working or not, and browser and OS used? doncram (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Could this page please give more information about the process for nomination of a Historic Property (Particularly in Minneapolis)?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111105084558/http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/designations/Lists/LIST11.pdf to http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/designations/Lists/LIST11.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080315081754/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail2.cfm?ResourceId=1109&Date=2002&Ownership=Private&priorityname=Watch&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail2.cfm?ResourceId=1109&Date=2002&Ownership=Private&priorityname=Watch&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080315081759/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail2.cfm?ResourceId=1447&Date=2004&Ownership=Private&priorityname=Watch&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail2.cfm?ResourceId=1447&Date=2004&Ownership=Private&priorityname=Watch&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606031331/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail2.cfm?ResourceId=784&Date=2004&Ownership=Private&priorityname=Satisfactory&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail2.cfm?ResourceId=784&Date=2004&Ownership=Private&priorityname=Satisfactory&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606031300/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail2.cfm?ResourceId=805&Date=2004&Ownership=Private&priorityname=Satisfactory&ResourceType=Site to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail2.cfm?ResourceId=805&Date=2004&Ownership=Private&priorityname=Satisfactory&ResourceType=Site
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080315081824/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail2.cfm?ResourceId=823&Date=2004&Ownership=Private&priorityname=Satisfactory&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail2.cfm?ResourceId=823&Date=2004&Ownership=Private&priorityname=Satisfactory&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080315081809/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail2.cfm?ResourceId=1543&Date=&Ownership=Private&priorityname=&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail2.cfm?ResourceId=1543&Date=&Ownership=Private&priorityname=&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606031628/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail2.cfm?ResourceId=1448&Date=2000&Ownership=Private&priorityname=Threatened&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail2.cfm?ResourceId=1448&Date=2000&Ownership=Private&priorityname=Threatened&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040606195612/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/default.cfm to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/default.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040606195612/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/default.cfm to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/default.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)