Talk:Gettysburg National Military Park
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Valid article?[edit]
I know that the move of this article from Gettysburg happened three years ago, but I don't think this park fits our article criteria. All of the accommodations and traveler services are outside the park in the borough of Gettysburg. Powers (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- You're right. This article is a mix of a city guide for Gettysburg and a park guide. The Gettysburg article is left complete empty. It should be a city guide for Gettysburg with clear information on its main attraction; the military park. It doesn't look like the park information would crowd the city information either, so a merge (or in this case rather a delete and rename) seems fine. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'd suggest a merge of the town & park articles would make sense, and also that the combined article should be named "Gettysburg" with no disambiguation - everything on the current Gettysburg disambiguation page is a redlink, and all of the links are for places that seems to be significantly less well-known. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Traveler100: for additional input. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Agree most of the content of this Park article should be move to the city article. I was just reacting to the creation of the county page and the incorrect reference to the town which redirected to the park. This is however an official national park so I think it is worth trying to make a usable park article out of this page before just merging or moving. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, although I'd say that's only better if we have enough content to make both articles worthwhile. Personally, I'd prefer one good Gettyburg article including the park over two separate but "only" usable articles. I also think that serves the traveller better. Splitting them because it is an official park and thus can have an article of its own doesn't seem like a good reason to have two articles. JuliasTravels (talk)
- It appears there's only a single campground on the park grounds, and it's only used by scouting and youth groups. I'm not sure that's enough to swing the park into a valid destination rather than an attraction. It is, almost overwhelmingly, something people go to see rather than a place people visit. Powers (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, although I'd say that's only better if we have enough content to make both articles worthwhile. Personally, I'd prefer one good Gettyburg article including the park over two separate but "only" usable articles. I also think that serves the traveller better. Splitting them because it is an official park and thus can have an article of its own doesn't seem like a good reason to have two articles. JuliasTravels (talk)
- Agree most of the content of this Park article should be move to the city article. I was just reacting to the creation of the county page and the incorrect reference to the town which redirected to the park. This is however an official national park so I think it is worth trying to make a usable park article out of this page before just merging or moving. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Traveler100: for additional input. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'd suggest a merge of the town & park articles would make sense, and also that the combined article should be named "Gettysburg" with no disambiguation - everything on the current Gettysburg disambiguation page is a redlink, and all of the links are for places that seems to be significantly less well-known. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)