Talk:Old Mission State Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Idaho, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Idaho on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

	This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Photos

Photos and/or photo uploads are needed.

• HABS photos may be available for this site.
• NRHP photos from 1975 linked in article are taken by NPS employee, hence may be public domain and can be used.
• New photos would be helpful.

[edit] Merging

There is also an article called Old Mission State Park with substantially greater information. It was my thought that the articles be merged, with consistancy to the Wikipedia guidelines. "Vatsun | Talk" 03:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not notice this posting until just now, after I noticed the Cataldo Mission article was wiped out to redirect to Old Mission State Park, and after I just posted some objection to abruptness of such change at User talk:Vatsun#Cataldo Mission / Old Mission State Park. Since there was Vatsun's notice here, it was not as abrupt as I perceived it. However, the Old Mission State Park article was brand new on March 30, and I do not feel it had "substantially greater" information, that rubs me the wrong way. Who are you to say what you wrote is "greater" than the sources and info and pictures I and another editor had put into Cataldo Mission article? The merger as implemented wipes out the edit history in the pre-existing article, which is counter to usual practice as i know it. The new material should have been added to the pre-existing article, in my view.

Also, although there was this talk comment, it is customary as far as i know to make a proposal using mergeto and mergefrom tags, and secure a consensus before wiping out other peoples' work.

I've asked for Vatsun to comment, please. I currently want to get an administrator's help and reverse the way this was done. doncram (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Was the merger comment also posted to the Cataldo Mission article? I thought it was on my watchlist, so I would have noticed if it were. I do like the new pics, but would have kept the old ones in the article as well. We did spend some time reviewing options and choosing it. I object to the loss of edit history. I don't otherwise object to a merger. Coming from the wikiworld of National Historic Landmarks and Registered Historic Places, I like to have an article that uses the name of the landmark as the title. Lvklock (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you may be upset by the way the merger was done, and I am sorry that it was done incorrectly. The only reason that I took out the other picture is because it was very similar to the color picture of the church. I felt that since Old Mission State Park had more information, it would be easier to merge Cataldo into Old Mission State Park. I also understand that since National Historic Landmark takes precedence over state park, it could go the other way. I would not mind if it was undone, as long as the two articles are merged and all of the information is kept. "Vatsun | Talk" 17:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)