Talk:Yellowstone National Park

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Photos[edit]

This article could really use a few good photos -- my Yellowstone pictures are all pretty lousy, and there doesn't seem to be much available from nps.gov. If anyone out there has a few good shots of Old Faithful, Mammoth Hot Springs, the animals, or anything else that captures what Yellowstone is all about then they're very much needed. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 04:35, 19 Jun 2005 (EDT)

I just got back from Yellowstone last week. It was amazing and fabulous. We were able to participate in three ranger-led tours, so I feel up to date with our information. I can improve on the captions of two photos:

Current caption: The calcite terraces at Mammoth Hot Springs. These springs flourished with water until the late 1970s, but are currently dry.

Better caption: The calcite terraces at Mammoth Hot Springs. The activity of the springs changes from day to day, with some drying up for a time while others become active.

Current caption: Lone Star geyser erupting, Check at Old Faithful Visitor Center for times

Better caption: Lone Star geyser erupting. The Old Faithful Visitor Center predicts times for eruptions of several large geysers, but this list changes from time to time. <When we were there last week, Lone Star was not one of the geyers among the 6 being currently predicted. It all relates to which geysers are independent of the others. Geysers that function as a group are not predictable, and this seems to from time to time.>

The park service does provide over 13,000 digital photos that are free for any use. http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/slidefile/index.htm --(WT-en) Donnamanley 17:14, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Adding a few of my photos now, to kick it up a notch. (WT-en) WineCountryInn 14:59, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

NPS has an extensive archive of many photos of the Park, only part of which is thermal features. I'm pretty sure they're usable on here without copyright problems.

What to see?[edit]

I wonder if the Yellowstone article See: section should be divided into regions, because there are just so many things to see in the park, and there is such a variety of things to see.

I'm actually having a similar problem with the Grand Teton National Park article, in that it's hard to define what to see. I don't think Grand Teton is quite diverse enough to split into regions, but Yellowstone certainly could be explained that way.

Alternatively, Yellowstone could be organized by types of sights: geysers, hot springs, waterfalls, etc. -- (WT-en) Mikito 20:06, 19 Jun 2005 (EDT)

From an organizational standpoint it seems best to group things by location, so I took a stab at it using info from http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/areaplanners/index.htm. Edit away if you've got different ideas. If things get too out of hand we can break the article into districts, but at the moment it seems manageable. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 02:04, 20 Jun 2005 (EDT)
I just added some info following your setup. The way you have it arranged by area (Mammoth, Norris, etc.) is pretty much the same as how I would have done it. -- Mikito 67.1.96.220 10:35, 20 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Old Faithful[edit]

Hi Mikito. Great work thus far on this article. One point of confusion though is the statement "As of June 2005, Old Faithful was erupting every 92 minutes 90% of the time and every 62 minutes the other 10% of the time". As it is currently written it sounds like the geyser either erupts exactly each 62 minutes or else exactly each 92 minutes, rather than between 62 and 92 minutes, with an average interval of 90 minutes. See http://www.nps.gov/yell/tours/oldfaithful/oldfaith.htm for one of many sets of (differing) statistics on eruption frequency. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 20:49, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)

OK, I was paraphrasing from what a ranger said during my visit. The ranger went on to say that their forecasts give about 10 minutes of leeway on each side of the forecast. He jokingly excused this by saying that they try to be "accurate but not precise". -- (WT-en) Mikito 20:53, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
I've just changed it again to say that "as of June 2005, Old Faithful had an average eruption cycle of about 91 minutes". -- (WT-en) Mikito 21:02, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
I forgot to mention that the ranger said that Old Faithful was very strange for a geyser, in that it erupts every 92 minutes (give or take 10 minutes) 90% of the time, and every 62 minutes (give or take 10 minutes) the other 10% of the time, with almost no variation in between. Given that amount of leeway, I can see how they can claim to make accurate predictions. Even so, I think it is odd for a geyser to have two such well-defined intervals for eruptions rather than a continuous spectrum of timings. -- (WT-en) Mikito 21:12, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
The "give or take 10 minutes" info makes the wording much, much clearer so I've added your statement above (nearly verbatim) back into the article. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 04:16, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)
As it stands, the current wording is fine with me. I wanted to get across two main ideas: 1) that Old Faithful doesn't run exactly like clockwork, and 2) that Old Faithful has not one but two ranges of eruption timings, which is quite unusual. -- (WT-en) Mikito 11:26, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)
Rigorously speaking, it isn't correct that it "erupts every 92 minutes (give or take 10 minutes)" but rather that the time of the next eruption can be predicted to within about 10 minutes, if the duration of the previous eruption is known. The actual variation in interval from eruption to eruption is somewhat longer than "give or take 10 minutes." See this reference for details. Probably not worth changing at this point, unless there begin to be complaints about misinformation. (Incidentally, I've added some stuff on other "predictable" geysers.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:36, 18 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Nomination to star?[edit]

What do you think? Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 21:02, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Typically "star" articles are those that the community feels can compete with any other travel guide's article; the text has to be good, the listings have to be complete, etc. At a minimum this article needs a Wikivoyage-style map, the article needs some re-organization to be more readable and better indicate what the regions of the park are, etc. See Project:Star articles and Project:Article status for further details. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:54, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
Alright, just a thought. Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 21:57, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
There is now a Wikivoyage-style map, etc., on this Wikivoyage article. I think it could now be a star article. What do you think? Selfie City (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

This article is lacking a good map - if any of Wikivoyage's map gurus have free time, NPS has several public domain map sources at [1]. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:31, 7 May 2012 (EDT)

Airports[edit]

I need to rework the airports section a little with some suggestions for getting there from larger airports. Hope this will be okay if I chop up the current layout a little.Lumpytrout (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please chop away - any formatting issues can be easily fixed later. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative banner for this article?[edit]

Banner currently used in this article
Suggested new alternative banner

I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the current banner, which has a wonderful composition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The new suggestion is a good banner, but I do prefer the current for its better composition. Danapit (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually prefer the proposed banner. The current one makes me think of any gorge in the West, while the proposed banner shows something more uniquely Yellowstone. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative. The current one is nice but it could be anywhere. Syced (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic map[edit]

This guide would benefit from a dynamic map somewhere in See section, to show positions of all the listings. Is it possible to have both static and dynamic maps within one article? Danapit (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Get in by train/ bus[edit]

I know that Wyoming is one of the four states that sees no Amtrak service of any kind (which imho should be mentioned) but maybe there is at least a token bus service from a place within a couple hundred miles served by a train? Furthermore, there seem to be bus services within the park? Is it possible to get there with a bus as well? Currently, Yellowstone is negatively mentioned as a place difficult to get to in our USA without a car article Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute one image for another?[edit]

I didn't want to plunge forward on this without discussion.

The first is the current image, with caption, and the second is the image I propose to insert, with a less poetic caption:

Artist's Point, the classic, iconic overlook of Lower Yellowstone Falls
The Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone and Yellowstone Falls

I think the second image is better, but I'll leave it up to you whether it should replace the first image, be put somewhere else in the article, or be left out of the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So nu, no interest? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the second image is much better and I'd replace it. No need for having both, they are too similar. Danapit (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, Dana. If anyone disagrees, the other image is still here for possible use. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination to star 2018?[edit]

About ten years ago, it was considered whether or not this should be turned into a star article, but it did not meet the star article requirements at the time. What about now? Selfie City (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Star nomination[edit]

This is a long article, with plenty of information and a static map. I think the article actually needs to be shortened a little, and some listings need coordinates, but it’s still a good article and worth nominating for star. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like Indianapolis, Yellowstone is a former DotM candidate that got thrown on the Slush Pile, so the discussion there should give a good indication of what needs to be fixed. (That was a while ago, though, so the situation may have improved in the intervening time.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issues there seem to line up pretty well with what I think. The number of listings is overwhelming and coordinates are needed for some listings. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My vote would be needs work, although I'd have to mention that since June 2012 around the time of the failed DOTM nomination, this article has increased by almost 20,000 bytes. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will now slush; no one has come out in support of this nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]