Talk:List of Oregon state parks/Archive 1

Skate parks

I've compared this list to 2 other sources: Jan Bannan's book (listed in the Bibliography on the main page), & a 2000 pamphlet from the oregon State Parks and Recreation Department. Based on this checking, I've removed the following for reasons stated:

1. Skate parks. Sorry folks, this is a list of State parks, not any kind of recreational place open to the public. And I am quite sure that the Burnside Skate Park is not operated by the State of Oregon.

• Astoria Skate Park External website
• Aumsville Skate Park External website
• Brookings Skate Park External website
• Burnside Skate Park External website
• Donald Skate park External website
• Hood River Skate Park External website
• Lincoln City Skate Park External website
• Milton-Freewater Skate Park External website
• Newberg Skate Park External website
• Redmont Skate Park External website

2. Rest Areas. If we include them, let's include all of them. However, I don't think we should include any rest areas, due to the fact that the presence of public toilets & a charity selling coffee doesn't meet the standards of notability.

• Maples Rest Area
• Wallowa River Rest Area

3. Disputed Items. Between this list, Bannan's book, the brochure mentioned above, & my own knowledge, if an item doesn't get mentioned in at least 2 of these, I don't think it should be included -- although one or two sound as if they should be included. If you disagree, find a trustworthy source to cite & prove that one or more of the following should be on this list; otherwise, let's keep it off of the main list.

• Clay Myers State Natural Area at Whalen Island
• Crissey Field State Recreation Site
• Dwyer Wayside -- listed in Bannan's book, but I can't place it, nor is it mentioned in the Parks' Department brochure.
• Fort Rock Cave
• The Cove Palisades State Park
• Tokatee Klootchman State Natural Site
• Unity Forest State Scenic Corridor
• Winchuck State Recreation Site

llywrch 03:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I recall, I compiled the list originally from the web site of Oregon State Parks. Whatever they had put on the list, I included. I had no other source than that. -- Decumanus 05:54, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

I noticed right away that "Fort Rock Cave" appeared to be a duplicate of the entry immediately before it; probably an error from the OSP website. I think Clay Myers is still alive -- & in any case, he's hardly the famous politician that a park would be named for -- so I would be very surprised to see a park named for him.

My whole intent is that it's better to keep verifying information here in Wikipedia, than just assume it must be correct. Not trying to put blame on anyone, Matt. -- llywrch 21:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Up until 5 minutes ago I totally thought the page was titled Oregon Skate Parks. D'oh! Cacophony 16:48, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well yes it's quite possible there are errors or typos. I think their official site didn't have a single list, but was in several HTML columns/pages that I had to splice together. -- Decumanus 00:52, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think we ought to have an article about the Burnside Skate Park. I understand that it's in the 10 most notable parks in the US. -- llywrch 21:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New article

A new list is being created at List of Oregon State Parks/New article PDXblazers 02:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Clay Myers State Natural Area

I put it back on the list on the basis of the following: 1. It is owned and managed by the Parks & Recreation Dept., and while the word "Park" is not in its name in order to denote it being kept in a more natural state, it meets the dictionary definition of one (certainly more so than museums on the list). 2. It was named after H. Clay Myers, who was arguably one of the three most powerful Oregon politicians in his day, and whose was a fierce proponent of environmental and naturalist causes (Oregon's beaches would still be subject to private ownership without his brokering the McCall plan to make public access the law). The August 1, 2001, minutes of the Oregon Parks & Recreation Commission (held at the Ford Family Foundation site in Roseburg)show that the proposal to name the area after Myers carried unanimously.[1]. 3. It meets the criteria for an article title, should one ever be written, under MoS as both an official and a "popular" name, and for notability (a quick and rough Google-check on "Clay Myers Whalen Island" produces 80,600+ hits, admittedly only a spot check, but surprising to me).

It should be noted that it is only the State Parks lands at Whalen Island, and that the area includes more developed park facilities owned and operated by Tillamook County, although that's beyond the scope of this article, being only a list. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 19:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In brief: no need to have "park" in something's name to be included on this list, if managed by P & R. Lots of these used to be called parks have been renamed, but not necessarily "demoted". Katr67 21:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Any objection to delinking Skate parks?

I think the discussion about skate parks should be archived, now that everyone is clear on what's going on here. Does anyone object to my unlinking the skatepark redlinks before I do this? I have a feeling there are not going to be any articles written about them... Katr67 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Two quick concerns

1. I have some qualms about parallel development on two separate pages. Issues of document history, potential for inadvertent losses in the ultimate merge, etc., leap to mind.
2. I am a bit confused about how having so many Oregon-related articles which are merely lists conflicts with the spirit if not the letter of "Wikipedia is not a directory," and the clean-up tag which instructs to convert lists to prose and/or tables. I'm not itchin' for a fight here -- honestly seeking clarification. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There isn't exactly parallel development because the new article isn't being developed. PDXBlazers hasn't been around for a while. Maybe it would be a good time to speedy delete it. Since a flurry of activity in August, documented on the WPOR talk page, no one has really done anything with it. I think the present article is fine the way it is (especially now that it has alphabetical sections) and simply needs to be deredlinked, completed and/or have the names entered accurately. Since it was agreed that the particulars of each site (showers, etc.) were not encyclopedic, I'm not sure how useful the table format is and yes, with the location info etc., gets dangerously close to directory status. As far as the list vs. prose thing goes, there is a discussion in Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ about lists vs. categories and how lists are sometimes useful. Like it says in the FAQ about "missing" articles, I think this list is useful until such time as *every* state park has a link, which would then render it redundant with Category:Oregon state parks. As it stands now, it's kind of more handy from a project standpoint than for the actual wikipedia user. Anyway, let's see if there's still interest in developing the alternate article by bringing attention to it on the project Oregon page, and we can revisit the features of the other state articles and see if there's anything we can shamelessly copy. Katr67 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As an afterthought, it might be useful for the project, instead of developing an FA or GA to make a push to have everyone contribute a few state park stubs a day until they're done, as long as everyone promised to not say any of them are "nestled" in anything. Katr67 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... I trust your objection to "nestled" is based on overuse, and not as a matter of incorrect usage (OED documents its use to signify a building, settlement, etc. to lie sheltered or half-hidden, usually with "in," "within," etc., back to 1842). But back to the point. I did find an essay in WP:HELP on lists which reiterates their usefulness, but provides no guidance as to when freestanding lists are appropriate. I think this one is clearly useful, it would just be easier to avoid crossing the line if one had someway of determining where it lay. And I second the motion for speedy deletion nomination. You want to do the honors? -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Throwing your OED around, huh? Yeah, actually, it's because of overuse, which I quickly noticed early in my career on Wikipedia. (See rant on my talk page.) Some of the state park brochures use the word (e.g. "the campground is nestled among mighty firs and spruces"), which then gets transferred to the articles when people try to sort of paraphrase and almost-but-not-quite plagiarize. Almost every small town everywhere is said to be nestled in some forest, glen, holler, etc. Google for it. You'll see. I think the only ones that aren't nestled are in Kansas, maybe. (Unless they are nestled amongst the wheat fields, I suppose.) Such a tourism office word--Echh. :P More on topic, let's see if there's any consensus before we speedy the orphaned article, but sure, I'd be willing to put it on the chopping block. Katr67 01:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I mildly object to deleting List of Oregon State Parks. As a mere list of articles in a category it would be useless. But by characterizing and contrasting the parks, then it's way more useful than the category. That was why I advocated a little more than just the names/links of the parks: arranging or indicating the region of Oregon, whether or not each has camping, showers, etc. Though those factoids put it dangerously close to a tourist brochure, it also makes it more than an indiscriminate collection of links—and useful too. This is analogous to 1975-76 United States network television schedule (and its brothers) which have handily prevailed over two recent article for deletion proposals. Why? Even though the "indiscriminate collection of links" policy specifically mentions "no television listings", the schedule and weekly arrangement plus historical documentation of television shows was judged to be of encyclopedic value. — EncMstr 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about deleting one of the two articles that list Oregon State Parks. The fact that people might be aware of one and not the other just became more obvious. One would remain. Specifically, this one. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 04:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fair enough, but are you willing to do the work to bring List of Oregon State Parks/New article up to an AfD-survivable standard or drum up some interest in getting some others to work on it? Because it's been sitting there for 4 months since PDXBlazers went AWOL. (I was thinking about e-mailing him to say "Hi", but his settings don't allow it, alas.) Like I said, I'm fine with the current article, with the stipulations above, and have other things I'd rather do than mess with a table (I really prefer editing prose). Is there another WikiProject we can interest in this--Protected Areas or something? I'm willing to work on some stub articles though--I still think de-redlinking would initially be a better use of our time than the table. And if nothing happens for another 4 months, what do we do then? Thoughts? Katr67 04:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's been on a back burner for me to do whatever it takes. I've left it alone partially because I was under the impression that PDXBlazers was enthusiastic about working on it. I hadn't noticed how long it had been. Clearly the commonality between the table and individual articles allows "poaching" some information from the individual articles into the table—and undoubtedly vice versa. — EncMstr 04:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be in table format... I only mentioned tables as part of the language in the cleanup template people slap on lists they are hankering to get deleted. Okay, that wasn't NPOV, but it made my point that I have no point about tables. I wouldn't even mind one of the lists laying dormant for awhile given that we may have higher priorities, both individually and as a Wikigroup. (I'm gonna be pretty tied up with government and politics related stuff for the foreseeable future). I am anxious to get the second list deleted before someone gets inspired to expend considerable effort to edit it, while others of us are doing parallel work here. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 04:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

J-M, since you're concerned about the content fork and have proposed speedy deletion, and EncMstr is interested in making the list have a table format like the "new" version, I think EncMstr should work on a revised version in his user space. Does that work for everyone? Katr67 00:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. — EncMstr 01:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as he checks for any edits that might be made by others (wishful thinking?) in the interval while the draft is being prepared elsewhere, I see no problem. I've already seen stuff inadvertently vanish with merges. It's the wrong time of year, but I frequent many of the redlinked parks on the list, and am planning on packin' a camera from now on when I go hiking. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 03:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I would check. All of those articles would naturally be on my watchlist. — EncMstr 07:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Any reason you blanked my commentary? Too off-topic? Please say something in the edit summary and/or archive if so. Katr67 06:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I expected you were writing to J-M. But looking through the history, it looks like I took it out. Sure didn't intend to. Must have fat-fingered it somehow. Sorry.

The other article is already gone. Sheesh. I was going to grab the text from the article a few minutes ago and create the new one. Next time, perhaps a simple article rename could be done, instead? Surely there was no need for speed on the deletion. — EncMstr 07:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There was almost a week's backlog on the "speedy deletion" list when I flagged the "new" article. Some administrator must have had a few extra cups of coffee. Seriously, I would guess that others were as uncomfortable as I about there being two identically titled articles out there rather effectively defeating the collaborative editing process. It's not something I've seen before, and not a precedent that I think would fly if put out for consensus policy review. My recollection of the text on the page was that it read like a travelogue, replete with florid language, but I admit I only scanned it. I'll see if the "way back machine" can retrieve it. --"J-M" (Jgilhousen) 07:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I got it from Google's cache, and put it in User:EncMstr/List of Oregon State Parks. — EncMstr 08:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)