I added an "under construction" tag to the article and am developing it. The edit by SarekOfVulcan eviscerated the article; i restored and continued developing, up to this version recently. A later edit by Orlady also eviscerated it. Their edits, which entirely remove many of the items, make the list incomplete and are simply disruptive. Obviously those edits tear down, rather than appropriately build. I think their point is that they don't like the incompleteness, in which case a cleanup tag is all that is justified.
Individual rows can be reasonably developed by copy-pasting material from corresponding articles, after the corresponding articles are created. Given the negative, obtuse-in-my-view pressure on this list-article, I will plan to start all the corresponding articles and then restore the list-article. Thanks, KudzuVine, for constructive edits adding info for South Carolina items. If there are any other editors intending to be productive, please speak up. --doncram 23:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
SarekOfVulcan has already pointed to the WP:AN discussion whose conclusion several of us are enforcing on this page. The closing administrator stated (in part):
There is a consensus that Doncram's creation of the stubs at issue, and similar stubs, is disruptive (#Consensus). These creations have been characterized as error-prone, vague, and generally impart little usable information.
Users encountering Doncram-created content that is defined in this discussion as unacceptable may delete that content from the article or move it to the talk page for discussion. If simple excision of the problematic content cannot be done in a fashion that results in a coherent article or stub, then the entire article may be moved to the user's space. Content should not be restored to article space until the issues are resolved. Content removal consistent with this directive will not be considered to be edit warring.
The explicit blanks (e.g., "19__") in this article and similar indications of halfbakedness are examples of the problematic editing that was discussed at length in that AN discussion. If you wish to restore the content to article space, it should not include explicit blanks or intentionally vague statements. --Orlady (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
For one thing, I disagree that this list-article is of the type of articles that you and some others criticized (while other others supported) in recent wp:AN unpleasantness. I don't think any list-articles were discussed in that. Your negativity is noted. May i assume you wish to make this article unpleasant for any other editors to edit? Given multiple statements on your part that you are not interested in U.S. registered historic places, I do wish you would leave this and other NRHP articles to those who are in fact interested and developing them. :) --doncram 01:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Each row in a table can be viewed as separate item, self-contained, and it can be useful to include links. In a long table especially, e.g. List of Masonic buildings in the United States, the fact that a given phrase was wikilinked somewhere far before, is not relevant. I happen to have know about this from being involved in featured list reviews, where tools may suggest "over-linking" is present, but consensus is that the repeated links are useful. Not saying this list is FL worthy or that every repetition here is to be kept at all costs. But AWB should not be used blindly, and it seems AWB would blindly remove repeated links that are in fact useful. --doncram 20:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Eh. I don't generally do featured link reviews, so I'll defer to your experience here. It wasn't AWB doing blind removal, though -- I was doing it on purpose, because I thought it would improve the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess that would also be a problem if the list was sorted on a different column, too. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I was just concerned if you were not actually really looking, and letting AWB just run a default mode, when maybe it should be set differently for articles with tables. I've seen other editors run with AWB default settings and refuse to change when it was pointed out the default settings were having bad results on the types of articles being edited. I haven't used AWB at all recently myself, am guessing this check is something newish in AWB, and that you could turn it off vs. on. If you take responsibility for it and look what it is doing on a given table, i am not inclined to quibble.
On a different article, your use of AWB seemed to just change the order of 2 references, and you restored the change. Honestly I don't see what that accomplishes, but no big deal for one article. I appreciate if you just take care to make sure the AWB edit is actually making a serious improvement, worth the cost of imposing on other editors' watchlists. Thanks. --doncram 23:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It accomplishes showing the references in order ( instead of ). I think you'll find that's fairly standard for referencing...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)