This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zion National Park article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zion National Park is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 2, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
Zion National Park is part of the National Park Service series, a former featured topic candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the topic for featured topic status. |
There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I took this out:
More settlers moved into the canyon and improved its ability to serve their needs. Cattle and other domesticated animals, however, pushed out wild game and depleted native grasses. This made conditions worse for the Parrusits still living in the area (whose numbers had been greatly reduced by disease and slavery under the Spanish in the 18th century). In time, their numbers decreased to almost zero as the remaining inhabitants migrated to less-crowded lands south and were culturally assimilated. The canyon was farmed until it was protected in 1909.
because while generally true, it does not actually apply to places inside the boundary of the Park, which were NOT habituated by the Piutes at the time the settlers got there. The canyon WAS farmed, but only very small parts of it. Ratagonia 05:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Eel this is wat yuh forgot is that zoin means a place of peace and refuge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.13.58 ( talk) 22:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thirty years ago I walked for a few days through the Zion National Park.
Some of the trails were cut into the sides of cliffs and it was my information that these trails had been constructed through make-work projects during the Depression.
This is not mentioned in the article though. I think it ought to be - if my memory is not playing tricks. I did a bit of googling but couldn't find anything on it. - Pepper 150.203.2.85 04:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
In all liklihood, the Civilian Conservation Corps did the work in the early to mid Thirties.-- MONGO 14:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
ANSWER: the main trails were built in 1925 and 1926, long before the depression. Source: A History of Southern Utah and its National Parks, Angus Woodbury, 1950 (Utah State Historical Society, Vol XII, nos 3-4, July-October 1944 - revised and reprinted 1950 (no publisher noted, probably USHS)). Ratagonia 05:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Q: While hiking the observation point trail we noticed several inscriptions in the cement.. they often showed an eagle, initials (which I can't recall anymore) and had the date 1975. perhaps the year it was paved? - Kflorence 08:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
ANS: the concrete on the trails needs continual maintenance. Trail crews are composed of generally youthful members who have a sense of humor, and may trace, draw or write an assortment of things into the wet cement. Ratagonia 05:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The initials carved on the Observation Point trail are 'SCA', and they appear with both the dates 1975 and 1976. My hiking partner there last Friday thought they might stand for the Southwestern Conservation Alliance, but that's just a guess! Mperrin 02:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC). You need to stop doing what you are doing so y'all need to stop messing with this website. Everyone would be greatful if you stop messing with this website so we can do way we got to do okay thanks
I wonder if the nearest city in the infobox should be changed from Springdale, UT to St. George, UT with the justification that St. George (with scheduled airline service) is more correctly classed as a city. The respective articles make this distinction. Walter Siegmund (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The red dot on my browser is now partly in Arizona...I also agree that St. George is the closest "city".-- MONGO 14:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
From 16:21 to 16:25 GMT on the 2nd of March 2006 User:Geoffrey Pruitt edits the article. He changes AD & BC to CE & BCE. Geoffrey, you missed one but the point is are you justified in doing this? Wikipedia's manual of style would suggest that you are not. The manual shows no preference for either form. Nor have I any strong preference for either I'm just not keen on seeing unjustified edits that could potentially start off an edit war. Jimp 04:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I spent nearly two weeks working on a virtual tour of Zion National Park which includes over 4,000 images. There is a user with a big stick who thinks I shouldn't put the link in here, so would someone else care to? It is at http://www.UntraveledRoad.com/Zion-National-Park.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KelvinSmith ( talk • contribs)
Can someone move the image in the lead to a better place in the article? It looks a bit messy where it currently is. Also, should we have the images alternate left and right, rather than the somewhat random placement we currently have? -- Lethargy 23:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you Lethargy, i was suprised and gravely disappointed that it have no whatsoever overlay / topographic picture (chart/map) and it still look messy 6 years later when it comes to the placement of images lol.(!) I mean, all you get to see in this article are some pictures of cliffs, one end of the valley and some hill photos. To be honest, it's quite shocking this article is a featured article. Im guessing the quality standards on geography are bottom low and wouldn't call this a "good article", more like slightly above the average but deffinently not worthy a good/feature article. -- Byzantios ( talk) 18:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
External Links - Just a heads up since this is a link on this site. --- Sadly the American Southwest Site has finally gone commercial. Heartbreaking! Here is an ad in it I just happened upon. Zion National Park Motel View Hotel Photos, Features & Deals at ORBITZ. Book Rooms Now & Save! Ads by Google
The page its found on. I assume there are more or there will be more soon. :( http://www.americansouthwest.net/utah/zion/emerald_pools.html
I've tagged the following related articles for merging:
I've set this article as the target (so the tags point to this discussion page), although I'd be equally happy to see them all merged into a single separate article ( Entrances to Zion National Park perhaps). Thryduulf ( talk) 11:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
[unindent] Oppose merger — National Register properties are documented in other sources than simply the Register itself. Consider the documents being used on the East sign already, for example. Moreover, these articles don't contain references to the NRHP nomination forms for these properties — the nomination form is a reliable source produced by or under the auspices of the state historic preservation office, and it's required to contain references to other reliable sources on the article; if it doesn't have sufficient coverage, it can't be listed on the Register, because otherwise there's no way for the Register people to know that it really is what it's said to be. For an example, look at the top of page 5 of this nomination form for a smalltown house in Pennsylvania. Nyttend ( talk) 13:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment I'm not an independent observer; I collaborate with Nyttend and Acroterion and others on developing NRHP articles. I saw mention of this at Acroterion's Talk page. I appreciate Thryduulf's evolution to last proposal, that some of this might "be better treated in a single article where the similarities and differences between them can be discussed together rather than separately". I tend to agree, although it is not immediately clear what is the best way to group the items. There are multiple NRHP listings of entrance signs, buildings and other structures for other U.S. National Parks as well. A good number of more significant lodges and other buildings are further designated as National Historic Landmarks (though none of these four Zion ones), and I think each of the NHL ones deserve a separate article. What is an issue is how to treat somewhat lesser structures. I think that the entrance signs are an interesting and distinct class from other structures, and might perhaps be treated well in one article about all of them (across parks). Any combo articles about historic buildings and structures in one park, separately, as Acroterion is drafting, could/should cover any NRHP-listed entrance signs to that park, too, but perhaps more briefly. The current name "East Entrance Sign (Zion National Park)" could redirect to whichever place had the most extensive treatment of the individual sign. On the other hand, if there is extensive enough treatment of one sign, it may deserve a separate article. Perhaps the Ash Mountain Entrance Sign article about a Sequoia National Park sign is already extensive enough on its own, that it should be covered in a combo entrance signs article, but not merged out of existence. doncram ( talk) 17:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the lead paragraph is a little long (see WP:LEAD). I think we could get rid of the list of plants and animals found in the area. Who the hell even knows what megafauna means? I mean, the Zion Snail is interesting enough that I think an entire stub or portion of the page could be dedicated to just that... not to mention the lists of common animals/plants. As for the history of peoples, I think a general paragraph about it will be helpful. The detail it goes into know is both boring and not appropriate for the lead.
As for the pictures, I think there are a lot of wonderful pictures that could illustrate some of the key features of the park. I don't think having a picture in the Bibliography is all too helpful. Perhaps we could simplify it a bit and put a gallery in at the bottom for all of the pictures.
Just my two cents. Jhunt47 ( talk) 03:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the first page, second paragraph, half way down: Does this make sense, "According to historian Hal Rothman, "The name change played to a prevalent bias of the time. Many believed that Spanish and Indian names would deter visitors who, if they could not pronounce the name of a place, might not bother to visit it."?
Think about it. The United States, indeed the world was a different place. In 1918, when this name change took place, the middle class was nearly nonexistent, a work-week was six days long and some 50hours a week - vacation? what's a vacation? rail transportation was relatively expensive, distances were long, and trains were slow. Automobiles were more of a novelty and generally only the rich had them; paved roads were for cities, with gravel and dirt being the norm elsewhere. The Lincoln Highway, from coast to coast, was relatively new and services few and far between. Indeed, it wasn't until 1925 that they even knew what to call a "Motel" and 1945 before it was in dictionaries. The idea of "cross-country travel" from the population centers to remote areas was a dream. Anyone attempting such a feat had better have time and money - and the average American had neither.
So we're supposed to believe that the newly created National Park Service had the foresight to rename a park so as to attract the tens of automobile vacationers to the park? Doesn't make sense to me. Do we have any additional to support the statement that people were worried about visitors coming? If not, it just one man's opinion as to why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwoliver ( talk • contribs) 07:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Cwoliver ( talk) 08:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
This Park was recently featured in the video game Fallout New Vegas as part of the Honest Hearts Add-On. I thin this article should mention that. Rynosaur ( talk) 18:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
There's no doubt that the link you included provides interesting information. However, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of web sites that allow one to see views of Zion, and get interesting information. There are some stunning videos on Youtube, and some great pictures on numerous sites. Finding these sites is what Google is for; Wikipedia is not a collection of links.-- Larry ( talk) 18:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The recent addition of news about a base jumping death was well written and cited, so I feel a little bad about removing it. However, it isn't especially noteworthy. There have been dozens of accidental deaths in Zion (according to one book on Amazon, the count is 73 since the early 1900's). Several involved temporary notoriety (one involved a Boy Scout; another involved mysterious circumstances). I don't see adding individual incidents as being useful. -- Larry ( talk) 16:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Zion 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Zion 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Zion 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I think this August 1979 is a good photo to insert. it shows tourists but also fills a gap, many pictures are very recent, or taken before the 1940s.
I don't want to disrupt the balance of a very good article, I let more expert users to take a final decision, Bye. -- Alexmar983 ( talk) 05:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Zion 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
In the area section, I wanted to update the latest citation for [1], but couldn't find the ref name="area" anywhere that I can edit. Princeton wu ( talk) 04:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
In History you write "Later groups in this period built permanent villages called pueblos. " HOW can it be? Spanish was not spoken ! Maybe it was called - "SORB" that means "gathering" and it was in Slavonic language, because people came from Asia, Slavonic Russia where Slavonic languages are spoken. They all were called Serbs or "Sorben" (including Russians, Polish, Bulgarians...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.139.87 ( talk) 04:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
1. Is it Coalpit Wash or Coal Pit Wash? I see both in the article. There should be consistency.
2. The history section should be placed before the geography and climate sections.
3. The "Towers of the Virgin: The Sundial (left), The Witch Head, Broken Tooth, Rotten Tooth, Altar of Sacrifice" image is pretty lousy. The fog is totally in the way. A better image should be found to replace it.
4. The history section mentions the "Historic period" but it does not have a subsection for it.
5. The "Archaic period" and "Infrastructure improvements" should be written in a chronological order.
6. The list of movies at the beginning and end of the "More recent history" section should be in its own section.
7. The text mentions 75 mammals and 32 reptiles. Later the numbers go up to 79 and down to 28. This is inconsistent.
ICE77 ( talk) 07:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
==Wiki Education assignment: Environmental Ethics and the National Parks== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2022 and 20 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alli St. John ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lgenn03, KatF91, Rileysteg, Mangodulce, FaithMildfelt, Abhishekram99, Emmjohnson.