Talk:Hot Springs National Park
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
 |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Arkansas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arkansas. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
[edit] it is not the oldest park...
Yellowstone is much older. unless we add in (from bathouse site: [1] ) In 1832 the Federal Government took the unprecedented step of setting aside four sections of land for the preservation of the natural thermal mineral waters and their recharge area. This act established much of the area now known as Hot Springs National Park as the first U.S. Reservation.
[edit] merger of articles
I proposed the merger a while ago, still seems like a good idea to me. Since no one has objected, I may implement it soon. doncram (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I object. Bathhouse Row covers a bunch of buildings, while this has a park and geology. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Isn't the Bathhouse Row a large part of the Hot Springs National Park? Since there are no natural springs in woodlands, etc., I have the impression the only place the hot springs are evident is in the bathhouses. So the Hot Springs National Park is essentially the bathhouses. Certainly the bathhouses should be covered in the Hot Springs National Park article. doncram (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see guidance in Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places about each Place having its own article. I remember someplace in Talk someone expressing a preference for places in the Registry having their own article. Should I go find that discussion? Bathhouse Row having its own entry in the Registry implies it has a certain Notability separately from the Park. (I recently encountered the opposite situation, as Balboa Park, San Diego, California seems to have a separate designation from the buildings in it.) -- SEWilco (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've probably been involved in more splits of NRHP building articles away from other articles, than the reverse. Splitting is often done to allow for more detailed discussion of a building, such as the flagship Macy's store building in NYC, than is appropriate for the article about Macy's the former company. In this case, I don't really understand whether Hot Springs National Park is really pretty much the same thing as Bathhouse Row, or not. I do see a big green area in your map of the Hot Springs National Park, which I imagine may be the border of the park which may be delineated to capture an entire watershed / drainage area. Relative to that, the Bathhouse Row is small in area. Is there anything much else in the larger area? Is there anything much to say about it? If not, then one article might be the better way to go. It would be helpful to have area sizes noted in the Hot Springs article, and to have at least some description of Bathhouse Row. When i proposed the merger, I was anticipating making the Bathhouse Row discussion very short by deleting all the Harrison text. Currently there is very little in the Bathhouse Row article that is new writing, as has been discussed elsewhere. If new text is written about each of the Bathhouses, then the Bathhouse Row article becomes large enough to deserve its own article. In the end, it might be appropriate to have a short section in the Hot Springs article about Bathhouse Row, with a "main" link to a separate main article on the Bathhouse Row itself. But currently the material could be handled as one section in Hot Springs article, hence I proposed the merger. doncram (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Ah, so the merge is only relevant if you delete most of the material? So one should merge History of the United States into United States of America by deleting all the history. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- No it would not only be relevant under that condition. I have the impression that you have visited the site, which I have not, and I was asking you whether Hot Springs National Park is essentially the same as Bathhouse Row, or not. If it is the same, then the merger would make sense. I also, above, raised the idea of deleting the Harrison text which has been much discussed. I probably misspoke in characterizing what was my intent about keeping the long Harrison text quotes in or not when I proposed the merger; frankly I don't really recall anything besides having hope that the merger would eliminate the impasse about the precious and/or hated Harrison text in the Bathhouse Row article. Note, I raised the idea of deleting the text as part of the merger to you here in this discussion about the possible merger; whether it would have been justified or not, I did not choose to implement the merger already and i did not delete that text. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
Merge - I support the merge as the article Bathouse Row is boring by itself and there seems to be no reason for anyone to read it. If it were incorporated into the larger context of the park (I did not even realize it was in a park) it would have more meaning as part of a larger whole. More readers go to parks anyway. Bathouse Row has no meaning to very many people by itself. Mattisse (Talk) 14:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Do not merge - I object to the proposed merger of Hot Springs National Park with Bathhouse Row. The National Park page correctly provides broad, general coverage of a much larger area, both geographically and historically. Bathhouse Row provides a detailed discussion of one particularly noteworthy and independent segment of the much larger National Park. By keeping the two pages separate, it is possible to provide a much greater level of detail about the history and architecture of the commercial establishments making up Bathhouse Row.RI-Bill (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
