Jump to content

Talk:Zion National Park

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleZion 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 2, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 13, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
May 8, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
February 7, 2009Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Native American / Mormon Pioneer Interactions

[edit]

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)[reply]

Trails

[edit]

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)[reply]

In all liklihood, the Civilian Conservation Corps did the work in the early to mid Thirties.--MONGO 14:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

Nearest city

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That is an interesting point. I've been putting the center of the dot at the location of the protected area. Because the dot is quite large, much larger than the protected area in this case, it extends well beyond the boarders of the National Park into Arizona. That doesn't bother me, but I can understand that it may bother some people. I think it is going to happen occasionally if the center of the dot is placed at the location of the protected area. See Devils Tower National Monument and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge for other examples.
Alternatives:
  • Place the center of the dot at the location of the protected area. Exception: if it would cross a state boundary and the protected area does not, then move the center of the dot directly away from the state boundary until the dot no longer overlaps the state line. I fear this would lead to inconsistency.
  • Place the dot as seems best to the editor as long as the protected area is completely contained within the dot boundaries. This might lead to arguments between editors or require adjustments if the dot diameter were decreased.
  • Decrease the dot size. This doesn't eliminate the problem but does mitigate it. The disadvantage is that the dot may be harder to see, especially for the visually impaired.
I'd like to place a copy of the relevant portions of this discussion on the protected areas wikiproject talk page, if no one objects. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC). This is the nearest city but y'all forgot some stuff about it.[reply]

AD & BC or CE & BCE

[edit]

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)[reply]

Would anyone like to add this link?

[edit]

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)

Note user's spam campaign in his contribution history, as well as talk page discussions. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image layout

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.77.108.247 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 16 December 2006

Merge proposal

[edit]

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)[reply]

I'd prefer the separate article, as I think they'd clutter the park article. It's been my intention to have a summary article, or at least a list of National Register of Historic Places Properties in Zion National Park, as there are about two dozen of them in varying levels of available detail. The sign/entrance ones could be consolidated fairly easily, as there's a common theme and they can more easily be compared and contrasted. Acroterion (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me, they are all non-notable, even though I am a (mild) architecture nut and a full-blown Zion nut. Perhaps one article for all "historic buildings of Zion National Park" would be appropriate, although I think we could cover them all with a few sentences in the Main Zion NP article. Or perhaps, they could be put as additions to the Zion Lodge article, which is brief, and the Zion Lodge is (IMHO) the only notable historic building in Zion. Ratagonia (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
National Register properties are, by consensus, notable, or they wouldn't be on the National Register, and the Park Service has placed particular emphasis on documentation of these properties; they've also been documented by the Historic American Buildings Survey. These have nothing much to do with Zion Lodge, which, it should be noted, is not particularly historic any more. It's mostly a reconstruction. There are quite a lot of cabins that are historic in Zion in the Zion Lodge Historic District (which pointedly excludes the Lodge), and all of the CCC-era structures are associated with the local interpretation of National Park Service Rustic, along with other NRHP properties and districts like the Floor of the Valley Road and the Zion-Mount Carmel Highway. However, I like the idea of the Entrances to Zion National Park, where a common thread can be made for the four articles in question. Acroterion (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The National Register of Historic Places does not set notability policy for Wikipedia. In the Register, there are PLENTY of non-notable properties. For instance, the entrance signs for Zion. In what way are they notable? something beside being in the Register. The articles on these are stubs, and cannot be filled out because there is nothing more to say. There are no other editors working on these articles. I think this material may be good to put in WikiSource, but don't think these are notable in the Wikipedia sense. Another place to put this might be as a section in the National Park Rustic Style article. Could we have other editors take a look at this and comment? Ratagonia (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia consensus has long been that listing on the National Register establishes notability, through the review of the state historic preservation offices, NPS and other agencies (in this case, HABS as well); the same applies for listed buildings in the UK, Monuments Historiques in France, and so on. There is a very active wikiproject associated with NRHP articles. That said, that doesn't mean that every property needs its own article (although there are many editors who will dispute that). The nature of the nomination process in a park yields a lot of individual nominations for scattered structures which might be better off in a bunch. The National Park Rustic article is a good summary, but it's no place to put the hundreds of examples of the style on the NRHP, and would make the places hard to find for those who are specifically interested in a given park's structures. I'd prefer that any summary article be closely tied to the parent park's article.
As for notability, the signs and structures are outstanding examples of Park Service design work, part of a New Deal-era project that produced high-quality design work and craftsmanship throughout the Western parks, and are part of the historic and design-related context of Zion. This is some of the best work the CCC executed. The articles' size is constrained by reliable sourcing, not by notability. Acroterion (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Acroterion said: "Wikipedia consensus has long been that listing on the National Register establishes notability." - I have not followed this issue, can you supply a citation for this statement? 2. Lack of any references to the architectural examples in notable literature is an indication of lack of notability. Is there ANY notability other than the National Register? Ratagonia (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look around, but NRHP status has generally been accepted as an objective example of third-party notice that satisfies the general notability standard; after all, these are screened through a review process at state and federal levels. I've found that many of the earlier ones have rather poor NRHP documentation, and these are examples. More recently documented structures have quite a lot of back-up as the program has matured. However, to deal with the second point, I've added cites to East Entrance Residence (Zion National Park) from two sources, which are the definitive references on NPS architecture. Kaiser specifically mentions signs and miscellaneous structures, and describes them unequivocally as "a collection of structures that illustrate the best of the NPS rustic style." That's four notices: NRHP, HABS, Landmarks in the Landscape (which has a whole chapter devoted to Zion's structures, including bridges and information kiosks, profusely illustrated) and the Sourcebook. I will note that hundreds of substantial articles have been developed almost entirely with NRHP nom information. Acroterion (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the reason why NHRP properties are generally presumed notable is that the documentation developed to support their listing on the National Register (and sources cited in that documentation) constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. IMHO, that does not necessarily mean that there needs to be one-to-one correspondence between NRHP properties and Wikipedia articles. For example, some historic districts include several individual contributing properties that are themselves individually notable and worthwhile subjects for separate articles -- particularly when different contributing properties have disparate characteristics and histories. (For example, one hypothetical HD might include an 18th century church and its associated cemetery, am 1890s train station, a landmark library built in 1904, a vaudeville theatre now used as a performing arts center, and houses designed by famous architects in two distinct periods of residential construction.) On the other hand, for reasons that are fundamentally more related to bureaucratic rules than anything else, there are many cases where several closely related properties are listed separately. (For example, I am personally familiar with a situation in which 3 identical buildings with identical histories were listed at the same time and for the same reasons, but are separate National Register listings because they are at 3 separate locations in the same city.) The determination of scope for articles about National Register listings should not be dictated by the way the property is listed on the National Register. Instead, I think it can and should follow the same general principles that are applied throughout Wikipedia, and that are outlined in guidelines such as Wikipedia:Content forking and Wikipedia:Article size, and on pages such as Wikipedia:Merging.
In this instance, I think that the article content should be kept (because the topics have the necessary coverage to meet the general notability guidelines), but users would be better served by a single combined article than by several separate articles that each has minimal content. Accordingly, I support merging the articles into a single article with a title something like "Historical buildings and structures of Zion National Park" (which article might possibly also include information about additional park buildings).
I believe that one argument that may be been made for creating a separate article for each National Register listing is that it is difficult to accommodate multiple listings in a single NRHP infobox, but I submit that infobox structure should not drive the scope of articles. --Orlady (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since my sources specifically discuss the significance of the Zion structures as an unusually unified whole, such an article would tie in well. The chief reason they're separate is that they were created in fits and starts, as my time and circumstance allowed, and I haven't gotten back to them. There are quite a few other NRHP listed structures in Zion that are listed but not yet described here that could usefully be incorporated into a summary article. I agree that infoboxes should not drive article creation. Given that I've created a lot of the NPS-related articles, I've generally intended to create summary articles anyway for the parks with the most notable infrastructure: Zion, Bryce, Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Glacier, Yosemite come to mind as the most prominent candidates. Acroterion (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[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)[reply]

I'm not arguing that these articles should be deleted, or that they lack coverage (otherwise I would have nominated them for deletion). What I am proposing is that they will be better treated in a single article where the similarities and differences between them can be discussed together rather than separately. As a result of this discussion I can see that merging them all to the main article would not be appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Nyttend was addressing the merge proposal so much as the question above concerning NRHP as an objective statement of notability. This AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle-Friedman House is a fairly typical example of the consensus view concerning notability; others may come to mind. In the meantime, addressing the merge proposal, I've started Historical buildings and structures of Zion National Park in a sandbox in my userspace. I'm going to try to set it up as a template for summary articles in other parks. Acroterion (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm a Zion nut, live 10 miles form the East Entrance, and I seek to defend the Wiki against non-notable articles. The 3 sources for East Entrance material are all "the same" - ie, they are all NPS response to NRHP listing, ie, they are REALLY a single source resulting from the listing/nomination. Notability would result if there are OTHER references to these structures in print or on the WWW, of which there are very few if any. Thank you for the book citation - I have ordered that book for my Zion library. A single sentence in a single book does not make a specific structure notable. Thus I continue to wave the flag for each individual structure being non-notable. HOWEVER, combining several of these into one, interesting article with references to several non-NPS and non-NRHP - ie, that someone else in the world has found them notable - sources would be wonderful. Is this the compromise we are coming to? Ratagonia (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you're missing, Ratagonia, is that at least one more significant, reliable source exists for each one of these, namely the NRHP application and/or inventory documents, which usually are well-written documents written by well-qualified historians, and which themselves often have significant bibliographies linking to other sources. As far as i can tell, these application docs have not been obtained or used in the articles yet. You may request free copies of these documents by request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov, to be emailed if they have been scanned already or to be sent by postal mail otherwise. I think without these in hand, it is premature to argue for non-notability. Hope this helps. I may not watch or comment further. doncram (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the burden is on the claimant to provide evidence of notability, not the other way around. (I have relaxed my non-notability claim based on inclusion in the book). My CLAIM is if the structure were notable, it would be in sources mostly unrelated to the NRHP listing. The NPS hand-written document is not much, and is provided for all NRHP structures (I guess), therefore is not independent.
- My impression is that we have come to a good compromise, and Acroterion is working on a single article that will combine historical structures of ZNP into one article. Ratagonia (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we've come to a reasonable solution here and further discussion of notability won't accomplish much. Suggestions concerning the summary article(s) are welcome, including edits to the outline in my sandbox. I haven't yet decided whether it will warrant a split into smaller articles. Once illustrations are included, it may be rather lengthy, but we can judge that when it's farther along. There are a lot of redlinks that I haven't researched yet. Acroterion (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]



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)[reply]

Cwoliver (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We rely on reliable sources for our articles, not our own analyses. And Rothman isn't just anyone. "Hal Rothman, Ph.D., at the History Department at UNLV history.unlv.edu/faculty/rothman.htmlHal Rothman, Ph.D. Hal Rothman. Considered one of the nation's leading expert on tourism and post-industrial economies" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I write quite a bit about Zion and WP tends to have a great page on information that is hard to locate other places, I would argue against removing that information. I also don't like the idea of a picture gallery at the bottom either. Also, Rothman is an excellent source of information.~ty (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

I think not. See WP:TRIVIA. --mav (reviews needed) 23:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, ephemera don't belong in the article. Acroterion (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

Base jumping death

[edit]

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)[reply]

Okay I understand why my edit was reverted. No worries. I was just reading about the incident in the news and felt it was notable so I decided to add it in. Though it is incredibly sad and somewhat noteworthy, in context with all of the other deaths at Zion National Park, it's importance does not stand out. If we list one of the deaths, we'd have to include them all and this is not the page to do so. I don't know if this information could be included in another page but if you have any ideas let me know. You stated that there has been 73 accidental deaths at Zion National Park since the early 1900s; maybe it is worth have a page of its own- Accidental Deaths at Zion National Park. I don't know. It's worth considering. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. I'm not sure how to handle it, and if you felt strongly enough about it, I wound not re-revert. I just checked and the Grand Canyon National Park is silent on the matter. However, the more inclusive article Grand Canyon does have such a section - 'Grand Canyon fatalities'. --Larry (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested 1979 picture

[edit]
The park in a picture of August 1979

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)[reply]

[edit]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit the reference in the infobox?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Spanish before Spanish??

[edit]

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)[reply]

Question and comments

[edit]

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)[reply]

==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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zion_National_Park&oldid=1193676527"