From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Automated suggestion

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Arches_National_Park article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Arches_National_Park}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Swap Geology and History sections?

Anyone else think the geology information is more likely to be of interest here? Bunchofgrapes 03:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Since there were no objections, I've done so. Bunchofgrapes 15:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Plagiarism?

While visiting the park today I noticed that one of the documents handed out when entering the park included one titled Archies National Park, Utah - National Park Service, US Department of the Interior.

This document contains, under a section titled "The Geologic Story," the exact text of the Geology section of this article. I would assume that means this article was copied from the document. Is this a problem? Is this text automatically public-domain becuase it's published by the US Department of the Interior?

Also - i'd like to see some better explanations of current theories on how the region formed. "A see flowed into it" sounds a little odd to me. -- Quasar 21:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Interesting. I was surfing for geological info about the fin structures, and I read this Arches article, then later ran across one with a lot of the same text at gorp.com, so I came to this Talk page looking for possible discussion of plagiarism--or at least attribution.
And you're right! I dug out my Arches park handout map and the geology section of this article is almost word for word. Even if NPS text were public domain and could be used without seeking permission, surely the Wiki Watchdogs would agree that attribution is required.
As for the request for better explanations, I wouldn't mind more either, but there are whole books on that. Ditto for history. And biology. The write-up is probably appropriate as is for the level of detail of the article. (Stay tuned for Wikiproject Colorado Plateau! ;-)
Kkken 09:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
My guess is that some of the text in this article may have possibly been transcluded from a federal website, which is within the public domain. Perhaps Gorp does this as well.-- MONGO 09:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
While government sources are not copyrighted, it's still preferrable to have a different write-up. bob rulz 00:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Mea Culpa. I added that text straight from the NPS back in OCT 2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Arches_National_Park&oldid=7148067 . FWIW, I did say that I pulled it from the NPS site, and Wikipedia was a lot more 'loose' back then when it came to citations-- basically anything in the public domain was considered fair game, it seemed. I intended to come back and rewrite/clean up, but I never did. Sorry. Davejenk1ns 20:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply
FWIW, much unattributed text in the same section is still present. -- 173.84.178.111 ( talk) 23:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Phallic Rock

Is not there a penis shaped rock at the park? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.59.209 ( talk) 12:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

After doing some research, I found that the rock is called "Whataman", shouldn't this be added into the article?

Map

I added a self-made map to the article. If you have any suggestions for it please let me know. I will be revising the rivers once I receive new data. I tried placing the map in many different places in the article and where it is now is what I found most aesthetically pleasing for the entire article. Justinmorris ( talk) 03:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply


Slight Edit

I changed the spelling of "consistes" to "consists" If this is the British spelling, feel free to change is back! -- Rzwiefel345 ( talk) 23:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Unclear sentences in Geology secion

"The weight of this cover caused the salt bed below it to liquefy and thrust up layers of rock into domes. Whole sections fell into cavities. In some places, they turned almost on edge."

Whole sections of what? Maybe something like "thrust up some layers of rock, while other sections of the landscape sunk"? Also, what turned almost on edge? What does "on edge" mean anyway - on its side? It seems like a colloquialism. - Pgan002 ( talk) 15:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Merge

Should the article Dark Angel (park) be merged with the Arches National Park article? -- The Utahraptor ( talk) 22:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Merged. Vsmith ( talk) 02:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Photographs being removed without stating why

ArchesParadeOfElephantsPanorama has been removed twice. Neither time has the person removing it stated why. So, why do people remove photographs?

I took this photo and it shows (in its expanded size) an extra long look at an entire section of the park. There are some jagged edge to the photo so all of the photos would blend properly without having to add faked filler.

Phil Konstantin ( talk)

Phil Konstantin

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arches National Park. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC) reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Sequence of sections

As much as I think geology should be the main section in this article, I still believe history should be ahead of geology and climate.

ICE77 ( talk) 00:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Arches_National_Park&oldid=1216968486"