The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep While similar to the list of areas, this list only includes the official units, excluding former sites, redesignated sites, certain combination sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, non-unit rivers, non-unit parkways, non-unit trails, cemetaries, and groupings of sites. It also has the benefit of listing all units in a single list to allow for full alphabetical sorting and sorting by state. While there is duplication, I believe this this subarticle is warranted as a distinct subset. Some sources include
[1][2][3][4][5].
Reywas92Talk17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I wish to consider your point, but the list proposed for deletion does not have almost anything you mentioned, including: former sites, redesignated sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, or cemeteries. I do not know why you would propose to keep an inferior list that has none of the content you desire to see.
Zkidwiki (
talk)
18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Right, the official unit list isn't supposed to have any of those because they're not the same list. This is not an inferior list, it's a complementary list that only has the official units presented together, without the areas that are not units. What if I don't desire to see all of that?
Reywas92Talk19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
We can't have a different list for every potential way to sort a list of items. Even if I were to agree with you, this list is just a directory that repeats any given excel sheet you can acquire from the park service. It is unnecessary to main the accuracy of two separate lists, one of which provides no information other than a state (even the type of unit is not sortable). Also, the list is far too long to read--there are over 400 units. It is ineffective other than to serve as a stand-in for an excel sheet when the featured list provides a digestible series of information.
Zkidwiki (
talk)
19:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Adding a column for type of unit is something I've thought would be useful for quite some time. Further improvements would be welcome.
Reywas92Talk21:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
delete I don't think this is useful. It's incomplete and has less information, and I don't see what two lists is getting us. It would make more sense to concentrate on the usability of the other, complete listing.
Mangoe (
talk)
00:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: The list is extremely useful for those that want to see the entire list of NPS official units uninterrupted by descriptions of the types of units, former units, etc. It's not too long to read for those that are, for lack of a better term, fans of the NPS. I have used it doing research more than the List of Areas page.
OneEarDrummer (
talk)
03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment'@
OneEarDrummer,
Reywas92, and
Oaktree b: if this sortable list is useful, why can't it go into the main article? If it needs to be separate because it's directly duplicating content in the main article, that feels like a reason to delete it.
Rjjiii (
talk)
02:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that it would make the main article long (either on the NPS page or the NPS areas page), but I would rather have that than for the content to be completely deleted. The table needs to exist somewhere. The NPS areas page has too much additional information to just say someone can dig through all of it to find the list of the current NPS official units. Forgive me for not knowing the terminology, but perhaps it could be "collapsed" on the main NPS page.
OneEarDrummer (
talk)
22:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: I'm only a casual editor, but I am a heavy wikipedia reader, and this list page has been super useful for me. If it didn't exist as is, then I would've not found the info I needed all in one place. I'd have had to go wading through dozens of other pages and probably given up. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
46.208.176.175 (
talk •
contribs) 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The US parks system is a large subject matter that requires multiple articles and etc. to work on. I'm one of the editors who has relied on this list, and others, for editing related to the subject of the parks system. This list is vital to me, and others who tend to the subject matter and the other related articles and lists. If someone can't see that need, then maybe they just don't take on the kind of editing that needs this list. But please don't deprive those who do rely on this list.
— Maile (
talk)
01:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with those who vote Keep. While there are similarities between the other list, this one is more useful and easier to differentiate between the various units. The other article includes multiple entries for the same unit and often across different sections which makes it difficult to understand which are actual units. If it's determined that this list should not be its own article, I believe a healthy compromise would be to have this list included in some capacity in the other article. Removing the list entirely and leaving no space for it to be utilized by users would be unfair to the entire community and exemplify the worst practices when valuable information is deleted from the site without any recourse.
108.48.176.251 (
talk)
17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: This way of organizing the very large US national parks system makes it easier for the everyday reader to find whatever information they are attempting to find. I'd say keep it. -
Navarre0107 (
talk)
16:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.