Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Library problems

Two things. 1) 'Thirty Sixth street branch library' as it is called here is actually called Hosmer Community Library. Should that be changed here, or do we stick with the NRHP designated name? 2) The picture of East Lake library is not of East Lake, but of a store two blocks east. I'll try and get an actual picture. "~~Bob Amnertiopsis~~" (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this article, the entry for 'Thirty Sixth street branch library' should remain as the nrhp name, but the link should be to an article called 'Hosmer Community Library' since that is the most common name for it now.
The photo of 2916 E. Lake Street matches the address. Is it possible that the location moved? Or is the address in error? If that storefront was the library, then it should remain, even if the library function has moved to a new building.--Appraiser (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about the 2916 East Lake Street address myself, because it didn't really look like it was a library. The books I have said that the 2916 address is correct, though. After checking the East Lake Branch Library page at the Minneapolis Public Library site, it turns out that they built a new location at 2727 East Lake Street in 1976 to replace the earlier location at 2916 East Lake Street. The same is true for the North Branch Library building at 1834 Emerson -- there's a new regional library at 1315 Lowry Ave. N, and for the Walker library, which is in a new location across from its historic building. (And, if you want to get technical, the Hennepin County Library in Robbinsdale, where I went as a kid, was closed when the Rockford Road Library was built about a mile west.) I've been writing these library articles (so far) from their historic standpoint as buildings, but we should do something to mention the fact that the current libraries have moved or changed names. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 13:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation from Elkman's talk page

The formatting changes that Elkman made recently, some of which were reverted by Nyttend, were motivated by discussion that began at Elkman's talk page (which I started in response to an e-mail from Elkman). To reduce further misunderstandings, the following subsection is a copy of the conversation so far. --Orlady (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hennepin County NRHP list

I reviewed it only superficially, but I think this list article looks like an excellent candidate for WP:FL. It's very impressive, with all those photos and blue links. However, I see several changes needed before it can be an FL. I fixed a couple of things on the page, but here are some more items to address before nominating it:

  1. The second sentence, "The preservation of these historic sites commemorates salient developments in Hennepin County's history" (I realize you didn't write it....), is arguably inaccurate on several counts. These are not all "historic sites," listing is not equivalent to "preservation," and not all listings "commemorate salient developments in Hennepin County's history." It would be better to provide some sort of summary of what listing means (from NRHP sources) and of the actual reasons for the Hennepin County listings (i.e., some are indeed significant to the history of the county or a specific area of the county, but others are noteworthy for their architecture, significance in state history, significance in fast-food history, or other distinctions). For example, List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama (a featured list) says "Five of the NHLs in the state have military significance, eight are significant examples of a particular architectural style, six are archaeological sites, five played a role in the African American struggle for civil rights, and five are associated with the development of the U.S. Space Program." I personally don't think it's necessary to count the listings by property type or reason for listing, but it would be useful to summarize the types of properties listed and the types of reasons for listing them, and to highlight anything particularly noteworthy about the list (for example, if the county list includes a large number of buildings representing architecture from a particular era). Perhaps a variant version of the last paragraph of the "Background" section belongs in the lead section.
  2. Because the article needs to stand alone as an encyclopedia article (outside the context of the NRHP Wikiproject), there needs to be a legend explaining the colors used in the first column of the table. A legend was created for List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama, but this list uses more colors and needs a more extensive legend.
  3. It's not clear why there are two "See also" links to the state list. I'm not sure which one of them should be kept.
  4. Separate the explanatory notes for the table from the notes for references cited. For one example of how this could be done, see how List of cities and towns in Tennessee is set up. (The annotations on that page were largely done by featured list reviewers.) List of New York Yankees seasons is another example.
  5. The heading "National Register name" leaves me looking for a definition for the term "National Register name." If the point is that this is the name recorded in the NRIS, that should be explained in an explanatory note for the table. On the other hand, maybe this could be changed to "Property or district name" (or something like that).
  6. The "Location" column does not sort in a meaningful manner. I think it does not need to be sortable. (Note that the Alabama NHL list combines locality with coordinates, both in one column.)
  7. The heading "Current listings" makes me wonder whether there are any former listings that should also be acknowledged in the article.
  8. In the references section, insert subheadings to separate the general references from the notes. See List of New York Yankees seasons for an example.

Good luck! --Orlady (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I thought the FL review of List of NHLs in AL forced it into a heavy-handed use of an upfront color-coding key, while a more understated key, to appear later in the list-article, would be better. I had the perception that the main reviewer on that particular point was forcing the issue too much based on how important it was to define terms, in advance, for somewhat different list-articles on sports statistics. In the historic sites articles, the color coding is not so important for understanding that these are sites. It is more "Extra for experts" to understand a distinction between historic districts vs. other NRHP listings, so I think the key should appear later and with less emphasis. The guy who is changing some NHL list articles to include a new NRHPdts template was also introducing a different approach, which somehow provided an extra bottom line in the table which provided for a key and/or footnote type information, which should be considered. I really would prefer for a less obtrusive presentation of color-coding key, rather than introducing a key before readers get to the historic sites. It is really not essential for readers to understand upfront, they should be allowed to see the various interesting historic places in the list and to investigate, if they really want to, later, what is some subtle distinction between types of historic places that we choose to provide with different colors. Note, the distinction between historic districts vs. other is often arbitrary. There are many cases where a listing could be presented as a historic district or just an individual listing.
Also, Orlady, thank you for taking time to provide your comments. doncram (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram: The same review standards apply across all candidates for featured list status. Any featured list that uses color-coding needs to explain the meaning of the color coding (unless the meaning is obvious from the context, as in List of Czech submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film). Reviewers often use sports and entertainment articles as examples because they account for the majority of FLs, but you will see keys to the color in featured list articles about other topics, such as List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations and List of Caltrain stations (a pair of related lists).
To Orlady: I may respond later, somewhere else, and after your RfA is closed, to communication style / implications / interpretation issues about your comment about my comment here. There is potential for misunderstanding. Lvklock's followup comment is helpful. On one level of the content of what you say, thank you for pointing to some other examples with keys, I'll look at those some time later. Also, thank you for moving the whole conversation here, that is helpful. doncram (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment reminds me of something I forgot when I wrote that message to Elkman: if color is used to communicate information, for accessibility reasons it is also necessary to provide another means of indicating the same information. I recall that this is why the funny little symbols were added in the key for List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the changes that I reverted: if there were any textual changes that I reverted, that was an accident. As for the column headers: what's the problem with presenting them as we usually do, whether with colors or with the "Landmark name" title? I don't know why the "Landmark name" wasn't used here, but that's what the county table generator gives as the default. Nyttend (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand doncram's comments to say that he didn't see the need for a key, just that it needn't be presented upfront in a way that distracts from the contents of the article, but rather in a later, slightly less obtrusive location. And, I wondered about/disliked those little symbols on the AL list, but must not have looked further to see what they were for. Thanks for the explanation, Orlady. It's certainly appropriate to be aware of people with disabilities like color-blindness (as I assume is the reasoning), even though it looks kind of cluttered that way. I'm interested in this because I've been working on a list that I may get to this point someday. Lvklock (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I've been advised that I have absolutely no business trying to seek featured list status for this list. I've been told that it's too self-promotional and that it's not in the best interest of Wikipedia to make this a featured list. So, let's just forget about this discussion entirely. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Register of Historic Places listings in Hennepin County, 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Hennepin_County,_Minnesota