User talk:Doncram/NHL-and-NRHPdelistings

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Another Believer in topic Separate lists?

"Wikipedia article traffic statistics" show more readership than i would have thought, 5-10/day on average, in various 90 day periods i looked up.

Contributors were:

Top 50 contributors

Username	# of edits	Minor	First edit	Most recent edit	Average time between edits	Average article size
Doncram (talk)	16	0 (0.0%)	2008-10-27T00:26:12+00:00	2009-02-19T18:42:45+00:00	7 days, 5 hours, 38 minutes, 32 seconds	7.73 KiB
Orlady (talk)	10	2 (20.0%)	2008-10-27T15:41:02+00:00	2008-10-27T17:35:05+00:00	11 minutes, 24 seconds	8.458 KiB
Daniel Case (talk)	7	0 (0.0%)	2013-07-01T17:47:46+00:00	2013-07-17T22:05:15+00:00	2 days, 7 hours, 28 minutes, 12 seconds	13.092 KiB
GrapedApe (talk)	4	0 (0.0%)	2012-06-20T03:28:08+00:00	2012-06-20T04:15:00+00:00	11 minutes, 43 seconds	12.443 KiB
Yobot (talk)	3	3 (100.0%)	2010-08-31T23:26:55+00:00	2014-04-30T21:55:50+00:00	1 years, 80 days, 23 hours, 29 minutes, 38 seconds	12.361 KiB
Bobak (talk)	3	1 (33.33%)	2010-12-02T19:35:54+00:00	2010-12-02T19:55:37+00:00	6 minutes, 34 seconds	11.565 KiB
Another Believer (talk)	3	0 (0.0%)	2015-08-06T17:59:31+00:00	2015-08-09T04:28:54+00:00	19 hours, 29 minutes, 47 seconds	14.258 KiB
25or6to4 (talk)	2	0 (0.0%)	2010-05-16T19:51:54+00:00	2010-05-25T11:47:22+00:00	4 days, 7 hours, 57 minutes, 44 seconds	11.142 KiB
Aboutmovies (talk)	2	1 (50.0%)	2009-01-09T07:38:56+00:00	2009-01-09T07:43:15+00:00	2 minutes, 9 seconds	9.224 KiB
293.xx.xxx.xx (talk)	2	0 (0.0%)	2009-07-31T20:56:52+00:00	2009-07-31T23:04:39+00:00	1 hours, 3 minutes, 53 seconds	10.6 KiB
Woohookitty (talk)	1	1 (100.0%)	2010-11-25T09:39:20+00:00	2010-11-25T09:39:20+00:00	None	11.462 KiB
Vegaswikian (talk)	1	1 (100.0%)	2009-02-28T01:35:04+00:00	2009-02-28T01:35:04+00:00	None	10.635 KiB
Runner1928 (talk)	1	0 (0.0%)	2014-05-04T04:34:21+00:00	2014-05-04T04:34:21+00:00	None	13.652 KiB
H3llBot (talk)	1	1 (100.0%)	2010-10-12T20:21:00+00:00	2010-10-12T20:21:00+00:00	None	11.362 KiB
Hmains (talk)	1	1 (100.0%)	2010-10-24T02:44:25+00:00	2010-10-24T02:44:25+00:00	None	11.448 KiB
Bms4880 (talk)	1	0 (0.0%)	2009-11-05T17:40:51+00:00	2009-11-05T17:40:51+00:00	None	10.878 KiB
RjwilmsiBot (talk)	1	1 (100.0%)	2011-05-17T10:26:01+00:00	2011-05-17T10:26:01+00:00	None	11.461 KiB
Citation bot 1 (talk)	1	1 (100.0%)	2010-05-16T17:56:52+00:00	2010-05-16T17:56:52+00:00	None	10.878 KiB
Magioladitis (talk)	1	1 (100.0%)	2014-05-30T11:23:58+00:00	2014-05-30T11:23:58+00:00	None	13.653 KiB

the article's Talk page

edit

Ex-NHL still on Register

edit

There's more than one. See Soldier Field. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Separate lists?

edit

If there are 1,500+ delisted properties, should we have separate lists for each state? Obviously, not all sites can be included in a single list. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

May I also suggest subcategories by state for Category:Former National Register of Historic Places? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I question the need to have separate lists of delisted properties at all. Perhaps a topic article on the phenomenon and process of delisting could be useful, but when it comes to identifying the delisted properties themselves, having a second table on the county-list articles works perfectly nicely. Rather than creating yet more lists of delisteds, I would choose to delete this one. — Ipoellet (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I hadn't thought of that, but I agree. I'll let other NRHP project members decide whether or not lists of delisted properties are helpful/important or not, but we should probably have lists of delisted properties by state or none at all. I do, however, think subcategories for "Category:Former National Register of Historic Places" would be helpful. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
The delisted properties are mostly in a separate table on the county lists already (and the ones that aren't usually just slipped through the cracks of NPS documentation). Meanwhile, this list is woefully incomplete for something that was created in 2008, and we've already done a good job adding the listings to the county lists where people are more likely to look for them. I agree that we should delete this one, or redirect it to the main list of NRHP listings. Subcategories seem like a useful idea, since the main category is more complete and has a more useful purpose than this list, but we don't need separate lists. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 23:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
As the person who added most of the delistings into the county lists, I think having these in the county lists is more than sufficient. I know that I still have roughly 300 sites that I still need to add, but these are sites that were delisted before 1978, which don't have official delisting documentation; they are just listed on the overall NPS spreadsheet as delisted. I would also approve of a delisted category, which could be added to the county lists that include a delisting. 25or6to4 (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I agree: a list as this aims to be is superfluous, and a list as this is now is absolutely useless because it makes it seem like we've identified only a couple of dozen delisted places. Deletion would be the best route, better than redirecting to the national list. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I went ahead and nominated the list for deletion. Please contribute to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of delisted National Register of Historic Places properties. ----Another Believer (Talk) 04:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Update: I went ahead and created Category:Former National Register of Historic Places in Oregon. We can always delete and return the Oregon sites to the parent category if discussion concludes the subcategories are not necessary, but I think they are helpful and I hope we can create similar subcategories for other states. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I don't see the necessity to break out state subcats, but I don't see a problem with it either. Good on you for being bold. — Ipoellet (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. There are now 24 subcategories, some with as many as 17 entries. These numbers are sure to increase as more properties are delisted and articles are created for delisted sites. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oregon

edit

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also, would a site like Antelope Creek Bridge be included? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
You mean where it was previously listed, then delisted, then relisted? From an encyclopedic rather than public-policy standpoint, I would treat it as currently listed with just some subsidiary footnotes about its previous listing history.— Ipoellet (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Works for me. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply