Talk:Yellowstone National Park/Archive 1

Supervolcano's gonna blow, kook theory or what?
http://www.crawford2000.co.uk/yellblow.htm (archive link ; added 2/27/2015 Jimw338 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)) I came here to fact check the link above. Given that it's on a kook conspiracy site, I'm assuming that it's all Art Bell stuff. Yellowstone is geologically active, fact. They've had to close some areas because of increased geologic activity, fact. Yellowstone is also overdue for an eruption in a geologic timeframe, fact. But in geologic time, anything from now to 50,000 years off is "soon." Should there be a section addressing this sort of thing? Gmuir 12:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say it is addressed, in the Geology section, paragraphs 2 and 5. Cheers Geologyguy 13:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

number of visitors
taken from Feature article nominations: The number of visitors given in the infobox is from and applies to the fiscal year, which most probably does not coincide with calendar year. gives the number of visitors for the calendar year 2002 as 2'983'051. Also, the km-ha discrepancy I noted at Featured article candidates should be fixed (just decide on one of the numbers, apparently, not even the NPS itself knows how big the park is: gives again slightly different numbers). Lupo 09:59, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Several quibbles
I very much enjoyed reading this article (and loved the photos) after following up the featured article nomination. I have several quibbles which can mostly be cleared up quite easily.


 * The lead paragraph doesn't say what country this is in, OK most people have heard of the names of American States, but it might be a good idea to mention the USA as a courtesy to the non Americans amongst us.


 * The lead also contains the area down to the nearest square meter, a bit precise? I'd put such precise stats in the infobox, and give the area to the nearest square mile/square km.


 * Throughout the article, there's a mixture of imperial and metric measurements. Pick one as standard (imperial as it's in the US?) and give the conversion after every time.  Example of current text: "It was created by a cataclysmic eruption that occurred 630,000 years ago that released 1000 cubic kilometres of ash, rock and pyroclastic materials ... forming a crater nearly a kilometre deep and 45 by 25 miles in size"
 * Geologists generally use metric unless you are a hydrologist or geological engineer and need to interface with engineers. I would vote for the page being in metric w/ imperial units in parenthesis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.15.203 (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "The park was named for the yellow rocks seen in the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone - a deep gash in the Yellowstone Plateau that was formed by floods during previous ice ages and by river erosion from the Yellowstone River." - can you have a flood in an ice age? Are we talking about glacial erosion or was this area always too hot for that?


 * Yes you can have floods during glaciation; specifically in canyons that are otherwise too hot and arid to have water. Glaciation doesn't necessarily mean the whole world becomes arid (See Death Valley/Lake Manly for an example).  Although I'm not sure whether this is the case for Yellowstone.  Snoop0x7b 15:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "It was known to the aboriginal natives as "Mitzi-a-dazi," the "River of Yellow Rocks," because of the high sulfur content of the rocks exposed in the river's canyons. The yellow rocks seen in the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone are caused by hydrothermally-altered iron-containing rocks." - shouldn't this kind of info (and more?) also be included in the Geology section?


 * There's no map of the park; I was wondering why there was no geographic/geological map of the park when I was reading the continental divide section - showing the two drainage sytems and the continental divide. Then I realised there is not a political map of the park itself either.  I have no knowlegde of this area, or the geography of the US at all, so a map combining these two factors would be invaluable (showing the mountains/rivers etc, and pinpointing notable things like old faithful and any other significant named areas).

Well, that all sounded a bit negative. I really enjoyed this article - honest! fabiform | talk 17:58, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Not negative at all. Thanks for the feedback! I'll try to address these issues this weekend. --mav 02:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The outline map and the box which gives the location as USA seems adequate.
 * I tweeked the units.
 * The NPS doesn't seem to have an appropriate map.
 * For info on (post)glacial flooding, see http://www.nps.gov/yell/nature/geology/geocanyn.htm.

For more on the general subject see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Bonneville and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods. We need an article on Washington's Channeled Scablands. Bill Woods 03:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if one of the various wiki map people could help out and find us a map? There was a list of the various map people on the village pump the other day, IIRC. I snuck "US" into the lead paragraph, I don't think it's too obtrusive. I just read the link which described the flash flooding, and classic v-shaped valley. Interesting (thanks)... as are all the gaps in our understanding of the area. :) fabiform | talk 04:13, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC), off to second the article.

Location map
How was the location map for this article created? I'd like to create similar maps for other parks. - Bevo 22:21, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Need coordinates for old faithful - Neptune180 20:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Longitude and Latitude my boy, longs and lat. I recommend: USGS GNIS name search. Sometimes I find the nearest know L&L from another article in here (usually a town), and then just use Google Maps to zoom in, switch to "Satellite" view, and center+zoom until I have a good accurate L&L. It is always good to double check both GNIS and a map, Yahoo! Google, Mapquest, etc. These maps are often off a few seconds in L&L, often minutes even.


 * Old Faithful Geyser:
 * Latitude(DEC) 44.4604887 /  Latitude(DMS) 44°27'38"N
 * Longitude(DEC) -110.8288224 /  Longitude(DMS) 110°49'44"W


 * IP4240207xx 20:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ansel Adams?
If I recall correctly, Ansel Adams did much of his photography of Yellowstone Park. Perhaps information about that could be added to the history section. That might also fill in the big gap in dates between the 19-teens and 1970's. --zandperl 03:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * He did work in many national parks, but is most associated with Yosemite National Park, not Yellowstone. --mav

DNA evidence
I am concerned about the following sentence: "DNA evidence suggests the devastating results of these changes could have resulted in the worldwide population of humans falling to as little as 10,000 individuals." does anyone have a source for this? I don't argue the point, but think it should be referenced. If the last eruption of maximum magnitude occurred 600,000 years ago, then there is little chance that humans were invlved in any way...that is the era of [| Homo erectus], not modern humans. Perhaps it should say something more like: Based on the evidence of previous eruption magnitudes, should an equal eruption occur today as did 600,000 years ago, the human population could be reduced to 10,000 individuals, due to the volcanic winter that would ensue.--MONGO 00:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * The edit which inserted it refers to the BBC.  But Homo erectus may have survived another 100,000 years, which seems unlikely if reduced to 10,000.  I deleted the phrase.  Also, the proposal to change from past to future tense does not seem reasonable because of the different number and abilities of modern humans.  (SEWilco 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC))
 * Okay, I started other editing but am not sure this article is yet to be a featured article or has already been one...I don't want to step on anyone's toes...--MONGO 04:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * The above quote actually refers to a non-Yellowstone event, so deleted it didn't really effect anything about Yellowstone Ralph 22Feb06

1988 Yellowstone Fires
Not to continue nit picking, but I fought the forest fires for over 5 weeks in 1988 and I am concerned about the following sentence: "Controversially, however, no serious effort was made to completely extinguish the fires, and they burned until the arrival of autumn rains." The problem is mainly the wording. The facts are that due to a transformation of wild land fire suppression attitudes which went from putting out all fires dating back to the 1930's to letting them burn unchecked in the mid 1970's as, by the time the extremely hot and dry early summer of 1988 came around you had a huge amount of dead understory in the forest. A combination of lightning strike and man made fires were burning in the park and west of the park as early as April as oftentimes happens and was allowed to happen due to the hands off policy of that time. This doesn't mean that the fires weren't closely monitored. When mid to late July rolled around, a series of dry weather fronts with high winds caused the fires to explode and one fire consumed over 100,000 acres in a day. Even though by this time, some suppresion efforts were underway, it was too late. The Park Service then called in all available resources but by then the fires were out of control. Thousands of firefighters were at work in the park, building hundreds of miles of fire line and assisted by dozens of aircraft performing retardant drops. Pretty longwinded response to my questioning the use of the words "no serious effort". Could the sentence be rephrased?--MONGO 00:43, July 23, 2005 (UTC) Additionally, the section should be expanded as it is the most significant event in the park since it's creation.--MONGO 00:47, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing more opinions from firefighters on the "no serious effort to extinguish" comment. Does it even make sense to talk of "completely extinguishing" large wildfires? From what I've seen, once a fire takes hold there's nothing that can be done except to contain it and wait for it to run out of fuel. If I'm not mistaken, this comment not only misrepresents what happened in YNP in 1988, it misrepresents wilderness firefighting itself. Shanley 02:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

article length
This article is getting rather long. The volcano information should probably be split off into a Yellowstone Volcano article.--FourthAve 04:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The length seems reasonable to me, and the information on past eruptions explains Park features. (SEWilco 13:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC))
 * I have no objection to the length of the article as it stands. Gary D Robson 17:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Er - I am the person who is usually the one complaining about articles being too long and yet I am planning on significantly expanding this article. In most cases, we do not even start to consider an article being too long until it at least triggers a page size warning. This article has not done that yet (30KB+ is the size that triggers such a warning). But given the importance of this topic and the fact that so much can be written about it, I would say that an article 50% larger than the current one would still not be too long. See Summary style. --mav 17:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

First and oldest
It says "Yellowstone is the first and oldest national park in the world" -- isn't that redundant? If it's the first, it's by default the oldest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.58.208.103 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That assumes that every national park ever created is still a national park. If such a park was created before Yellowstone and was decommissioned a decade later, then that national park would not be the oldest even though it was the first. --mav 17:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It was the first Gazetted national park. The Bulli National Park was founded before Yellowstone, but not gazetted. Sippawitz

Lower Yellowstone Fall Closeup
I added a closeup of the lower falls but it was a little hard to fit in. I thought it was different enough from the existing lower fall picture to be worthy of inclusion. --Zaui 18:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Why no Supervolcano reference?
I came here to learn more about the Supervolcano underneath Yellowstone. Why is there no mention of it? I would like to add reference to it, but I know so little about the topic that it would just come across as very amateurish if I did add anything. -- Andrew Parodi 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't feel that way, and you're right, it does need to be in the article...check here for info and more  and another to get you started. --MONGO 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by no reference? The word supervolcano was used at least twice in the article? Kowloonese 21:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Geez. How did I miss that? Thanks. I suppose that I assumed that if the supervolcano were mentioned in this article then it would be given its own section entirely. When I looked at the article index and didn't see any such section, I guess I assumed there was no mention of it in the article. Whatever the case, thanks for the response. -- Andrew Parodi 09:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Map Problems
Why don't we get a map that actually shows the borders of the park, rather than treating a designated, delineated National Park as an ambiguous region, in which case a simple circle would make sense.


 * I don't understand your problem, unless you're just talking about the map at the top of the article that has the dot. The map of Yellowstone and the map of the surrounding area show the boundaries of the park. Gary D Robson 00:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that most of the localized maps are at the bottom of the page. There's a lot of scrolling involved to find them. Subversified 00:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The map ion the infobox is just a locator for those completely unaware of where the park is situation on a map of the entire U.S. If the maps we have otherwise are bad or dated, that can be fixed of course.--MONGO 02:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

1988 Fires
MONGO is right. The section on the '88 fires is too small and too biased. Also, possibly out of date re: the current fire policy. I'll check it out and make an edit. Subversified 01:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Google the NIFC and the National Fire Plan and I'll try and assist this in a few days.--MONGO 02:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yellow Stone(s)
This article states "It was known to the original natives as "Mitzi-a-dazi," the "River of Yellow Rocks," because of the hydrothermally altered iron-containing yellow rocks in the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone (many people incorrectly believe that the yellow color is from sulfur)"

However, someplace else (on Wiki) it states the name Yellowstone comes from the yellow sandstone found near the mouth of the Yellowstone river. I think the reference was either Yellowstone River or Fort Yellowstone articles. The sandstone story also matchs my memory from school. It also matchs history, as the river was called Yellowstone long before the "Park" area was popularly known.

I'd check this out myself, but it's past bedtime Ralph 28Feb06(local)
 * We may need to find out what tribe or language this comes from, or if it is even an Indain name at all...or if our translation is correct.--MONGO 06:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I found a ref here ... & .  Per some other research I did, it may be tough to pin the language down to a specific tribe.  The area wasn't dominated by a particular tribe.  Bad thing is that the US gov sites don't reference this at all... Revmachine21 13:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Those certainly are a start...I'll look those over tonight...thank you.--MONGO 13:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting, two different sources giving two different backgrounds, how surprising (not)   Ralph


 * This is the account given in the Moon Handbooks Guide To Yellowstone and Grand Teton:


 * "The word 'Yellowstone' appears to have come from the Minnetaree Indians, who called the river 'Mi tse a-da-zi,' a word French-Canadian trappers translated into 'Rive des Roches Jaunes'--literally, 'Yellow Rock River'.


 * "The Indians apparently called it this because of the yellowish bluffs along the river near Billings, Montana (not because of the colorful Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone)." --Tachikoma 18:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It also appears here in this website...but they may have used your reference as their source. Billings is actually a fair distance from the present day park though. As far as French Trappers as part of the story, John Colter is widely credited with being the first white man to venture into the present day park. Does anyone have a date for when French Trappers are thought to have been in the region? It may predate Colter's 1806-1808 period when he was there.--MONGO 11:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * All the references I googled kind of look they point around and back to each other. Looks vaguely like an internet urban legend.  I went to the National Park System gov website and sent them an email inquiry.  So far no answer but I will keep you posted on what they say. Revmachine21 14:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hiram Chittenden, an army engineer and one of the park's first historians, reports the French using "Roche Jaune," perhaps as early as the mid-1700's. "Yellowstone" is a translation from the French name, which is itself a translation of an Indian name.  Chittenden gives the Minnetaree name "Mi tsi a-da-zi" as the ultimate origin, but preferred to believe that the name derived from the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone area (simply because he wasn't impressed by the "yellowness" of the rock along the lower Missouri).  Aubrey Haines, a former YNP Historian who frequently questioned received wisdom, disagreed.  He pointed to the fact that the Minnetaree did not inhabit the upper Missouri, doubted they travelled that far, noted that the Shoshone name for the river tranlates as "Elk River," and dismissed Chittenden's argument in favor of the "lower river" explanation.


 * Chittenden's "The Yellowstone National Park" first appeared in 1895 and has been reprinted since; for Haines, I'm using his "Yellowstone Place Names" (1996).Shanley 02:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good find! I googled Hiram's name along with the river of yellow rocks and found the following additional reference which uses the phrase even earlier than Hiriam. . This is looking less like an internt urban legend.  Here's an even better reference which itself refers back to a government publication.   I think we got this done & dusted. Revmachine21 11:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've tried to incorporate the findings of this talk page into the main article. I don't yet know how to cite references on Wikipedia, so could someone please do that? Feel free to rewrite my text, of course. --Tachikoma 08:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of editing the discussion of the name "Yellowstone." I thought the entry could have led to confusion between the naming of the park and the naming of the river. By the time Yellowstone National Park was created, Yellowstone was a well-established name for the river which dominates the park, so there's no controversy about that - for the park, Yellowstone is a second-generation name.  The uncertainties refer only to the original name of the river. Shanley 21:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
In the process of recaptioning the images in this article, I removed a few redundant images.


 * There were three different pictures of Yellowstone Fall and the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone. I removed P6260126.JPG-Lower Yellowstone Fall Closeup as it did not seem to fit with the geology section text which mainly deals with volcanism and seismicity.
 * There were three pictures of bison in the section about those animals. I decided to remove Buffalo Bizon.jpg-A lone Buffalo as it was least representative of the bison in the park.  The other two showed the bison near a geothermal feature and the other showed how the bison interact with and are affected by people in the park.

--Epolk 18:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a picture I took of the North Gate of the park that is much clearer than the current picture. The current picture is extremely washed out, and you can't even read the sign on top.  I uploaded my picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yellowstonenorth.jpg   I didn't want to just remove someone else's picture without getting a general OK first. -- Phaldo 18:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Picture looks nice.... Since you've released rights to the image under GNU, go ahead and replace. Revmachine21 02:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

CamperStrike

I removed image:Stump - Mallard Lake trail - Yellowstone 2004 12.jpg and made all picture sizes a uniform 200px to prevent crowding and/or clutter. Any thing larger than 200px on the right and 100-150px on the left causes photgraphs to infringe upon the text and each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CamperStrike (talk • contribs) 09:54, 10 November 2006

Reverted changes by User:CamperStrike as the image size was no problem (I use low res and had no overlap), the gallery images were blanked, and the added section Past and Present Problems in Yellowstone seemed either redundant or irrelevant and incomplete. Vsmith 14:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fires (part deux)
Jsut some observation as this section seems a little small. Maybe another article on currrent fire ecology theory is in order but here's my observation; 1). Prior to 1988 the park policy was to fight all fires that were accessible as the park was to be preserved for the future.  This created a dangerous situation that led to the fire of 1988. 2). But as catastrophic as that fire was, it was not the sterilyzing burn that pre-1988 "let it burn" ecologists feared. In fact only a very small percentage (less tha 1%) of the soil is sterilized.

and so, as I understand it, mans decision as to whether to fight the fires or not fight them is largely irrelevant in regards to the long term health of the forest. Even the most overgrown, fuel laden forest does not lead to sterilyzing fires. Is the current burn policy still controversial?

My own $0.02 is that "lots of little fires" prevents the "big one" but the "big one" is really only "bad" from a perception point of view and the forrest is ultimately able to care for itself in spite of man's effort to "preserve" it. In a sense, every year that yellowstone has fires too small to make the news is a successful fire management year. The current fire policy was put in place before the 1988 after effects were measured so has this been studied and is there any controversy over the current policy?--Tbeatty 06:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There will be a major expansion and maybe a subarticle on fires in Yellowstone. I'm trying to keep this article at a featured level and hope to follow a similar organizational style as can be seen on Glacier National Park (US), but since there are no glacier in Yellowstone, we won;t have a section on that. No doubt, this article needs a lot of dressing up, so whatever you think should go in here, add it. We have almost nothing about the recreation, park management and aside from what I have started in the history section, no references are cited in the text of the article.--MONGO 08:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Photograph in question
As demonstrated below, User Mogo believes that there is no room for a 2004 photograph demonstrating how the forest had partialy recovered from the 1988 fire. Shall this panaramic photograph stay or go.

I believe it shows how the ecosystem can recover from what was believed at the time to be a huge enviromental disaster. This panarmic shot shows that in time things return to they way they were. It also shows dead scorched trees (as edvidence of the fire)along with new groth and how it affected tourism at Yellowstone (blocked roads).

''I also agree that it should belong in the article. It is edvidence of an ecological disaster and recovery all in one article. Mongo has argued that such panaramic photographs don't belong in featured articles but here is one.''

A series of lightning-derived fires started to burn large portions of the park in July of the especially dry summer of 1988. Thousands of firefighters responded to the blaze in order to prevent human-built structures from succumbing to the flames. Controversially, however, no serious effort was made to completely extinguish the fires, and they burned until the arrival of autumn rains. Ecologists argue that fire is part of the Yellowstone ecosystem, and that not allowing the fires to run their course (as has been the practice in the past) will result in an overgrown forest that would be extremely vulnerable to deoxygenation, disease, and decay. In fact, relatively few megafauna in the park were killed by the fires; and since the blaze, many saplings have sprung up on their own, old vistas are viewable once again, and many previously unknown archaeological and geological sites of interest were found and cataloged by scientists. The National Park Service now has a policy of lighting smaller, controlled "prescribed fires" to prevent another dangerous buildup of flammable materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.207.137 (talk • contribs)


 * In Featured articles, we make all attempts to limit the number of images and the one you wanted included above shows almost as much of a road than it does of fire "ecology". The text in the blockquote is fine, but has no references and is therefore a violation of WP:NOR. This is a featured article and we also do not use "see also" in featured articles most of the time. You also have your resolution set up too high as most featured articles generally have images around 250-270px. I'm trying to get this article to a higher level, but honestly, if you're going to continue to try and force the issue, I'll just step back and let you continue to do whatever you want.--MONGO 12:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Vsmith that 250px is too big and clutters the page. Notice that parts of the article have a "bottle neck effect" adn appear crammed. Remove 50px from each left and right photograph and that will save 100px of valuble text space per line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.207.137 (talk • contribs)
 * That's because there are too many images in the article and not enough words. As the article is expanded, the images will be more spread out. Have a look at Glacier National Park (US) or Banff National Park to see how recently promoted featured articles have their images spaced and the size that is generally used....also notice that neither article is overcrowded with images as this one is.--MONGO 07:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The panorama photo was just too wide to show what it was supposed to at that scale - removed it. As for the 200px stuff, that is the standart for thumbed images - so why not leave out the 200px so user prefs can work? Vsmith 14:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think in the articles that are generally featured, setting them to approximately somewhere around 250px to 270px helps them from appearing too huge for those with a high resolution setting.--MONGO 14:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Er - I have my monitor set at 800x600 (the lowest setting) and have no real problem with image size at either the 250 or 200 sizes. I simply recommended the default for thumb size of 200px (in other words leave out the px setting) as that way user prefs can work, but can go either way with image size. Vsmith 11:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Article protection requested
I was trying to get this article to remain at a level of featured, but have tired of watching the article become of a lower quality than a higher one. If one looks at several articles that have been more recently promoted to featured level, Redwood National and State Parks, Glacier National Park (US) and Banff National Park, they will see that in each case, the images are generally about 250-300px, all the sections have cited references and there is far more text than images. I had started to add cited references, cleanup the text and make improvements, but see can't do this if my changes (which match the FA"s I already linked) are going to be reverted all the time.--MONGO 10:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Page protection has been granted. Please use the talk page to resolve disputes.  I suggest that everyone take a look at Image Use Policy and take into consideration that when you specify image size, it overrides user preferences (set in Special:Preferences, under "Files"). --Aude (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any discussion here...I have lowered the protection to semi-protection, as I would like to see improvements to this article to continue. I will keep watch on the article. --Aude (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Image Resolutions
I'm not too impressed with the quality of the pictures on this site. I uploaded a picture a few weeks back of the Yellowstone North Gate entrance that I took. That's the resolution I'd like to see, personally. Almost every other picture on the site has high digital noise and low resolution which almost makes them look like they were taken from a camera phone. I do have a lot more pictures I can upload, but would prefer not to have a high ego labeled by replacing every single picture with one I've taken. At least not without a general consensus first. But compare the north gate picture with the rest of the pictures on here, and I'd appreciate to hear peoples feedback on their image resolutions. Phaldo 21:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello - your pic of the north gate is unquestionably of better resolution (and a real improvement over the one that was there before). To my eye, most of the other pics are actually OK, both in terms of the way they look as small images on the page, and as enlargements when you click on them.  Could they be better? Certainly.  Do they need to be?  I'd say not, but I certainly would not argue with your replacing them -- see what other folks say.  The only pics on the page now that I would like to see better are issues of composition rather than resolution - Ft Yellowstone, Firehole river, and Old Faithful, especially.  Thanks for your work - cheers, Geologyguy 22:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Image sizes
I have removed all the specified "px" sizes, so that user preferences can work. Now, the article is overcrowded with images. Choices need to be made as to which images to keep here, which to perhaps move to the subarticles, and to commons:Yellowstone National Park. --Aude (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Galleries
As for galleries, they are typically not used in featured articles, though perhaps one with at most four images could be acceptable with a link to more images in Commons. --Aude (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Prehaps we could use a gallerie and do it with fewer pictures than the previous implementation had? User:CamperStrike


 * For now, I don't see consensus for a gallery here. We have a link to the Yellowstone page on commons .  That page, which serves as a gallery, can use improvement and better organization. --Aude (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Geology images
We currently have 7 images in the geology section. I think we have room for 4-5 images in this setion.

I think "Grand prismatic spring" is a must, as it is a featured picture. Which of the others do you think should be included? --Aude (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would choose the columnar basalt and Old Faithful (though I wish the OF pic could be a more dramatic one). Cheers --Geologyguy 19:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I personaly like this shot of the morning glory pool, but I think it will need some colour tweeking: the contrast seems to be a bit too high.CamperStrike


 * I have reduced the number of images in the geology section to ones suggested here. The article now appears much less cluttered, with viewing them at 300px ("my preferences").  It might be okay to change them back to 250px, so they are bigger than 180px that non logged-in viewers see.  I don't really have a preference either way, but just want consensus to prevail.  As for the Old Faithful image, I have found some other options on the NPS's Yellowstone Digital Slide File:  and  show Old Faithful during winter.  There are surely other options for Old Faithful images there. Despite the vast number of images in the Slide File, I don't think the article can accommodate more at this point than swapping the Old Faithful image for a different one.  --Aude (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yellowstone Fire of 1988
I also wikified the Forest fires section to provide a link to Yellowstone Fire of 1988. I think there should be a subarticle about the fire and how the ecosystem has recovered. I don't have the time right now or knowledge to start that article. --Aude (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Images again
I realize he/she means well, but continued efforts to go around to articles and reduce the image sizes to accomdate high resolution setting for browsers is being disruptive. I gave linked Banff, Glacier and Redwoods as featured articles that this one should rise up to. In those articles, the images are fixed at a set size (about 250px) which is a better appearance than the tiny, almost postage size result we get when we have images reduced to smaller sizes. Furthermore, the use of the ultrawide image above may be okay for a featured article, but that image in particular is simply not a decent one...much of the image is of a road, not of a burned forest. There are better images available for this. Finally, articles are not image respositories...they are supposed to have written and cited text and images are only used to illustrate...in other words, accent the text. I have tried repeatedly to explain this to CamperStrike, but I do not seem to be getting the message across.--MONGO 10:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Images.

-Camper
 * 1)The images look fine on a HD 1920x1080 monitor and are perfectly legible.
 * 2)I did not shrink them down further.
 * 3)User AudeVivere removed the px size and kept the thumb command and hence shrunk them below the 200px I had set them at to stop the cascading and text collision. As the result of the |200-250px| being removed the photographs are being displayed at to the default 180px.
 * 4)Do we really want to take this article back to a more crowded and cluttered version?

I have a couple of comments...
 * 1) I think the default image size should be used in most cases. That allows the reader to choose the display size in My preferences. It has the ancillary benefit of avoiding disputes over image size. Also, as technology improves and is adopted, image size can be increased globally by changing the default in the Wikimedia software.
 * 2) The Wikimedia software is not particularly sophisticated in its support for layout. I think that the only layout tools that editors are encouraged to use are and the left and right parameters of Image. The former is used just three times. More extensive use may be indicated. Any attempt to "stop the cascading and text collision" with image size is unlikely to succeed except on your own display. Readers use a variety of browsers, operating systems, font and window sizes.  The tools listed above display content in a fairly consistent manner, but adjusting image size does not. To get an idea of this, you might try running another browser, e.g., Firefox, or change the display font and/or size. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is active discussion about forced image sizes (specifying px for thumbnails) on the Image use policy page. I personally don't like the small default thumbnail size (180px) for anonymous users not logged-in. With my user preferences (go to "my preferences" -> "files"), thumbnail images are 300px wide for me. I don't think the default size is satisfactory, but not sure forcing image sizes is best. Ideally, default thumbnail size would be larger than 180px, and we could leave the forced sizes out. Forcing the thumbnail size to 250px might be an acceptable, as there were no objections to doing so on those other featured articles. I'm somewhat undecided as to which way it should be here. --Aude (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that link. I saw two or three issues in the discussion that I hadn't thought much about, i.e., portrait v. landscape image sizes, minimum useful size for certain illustrations, etc. I saw no mention of specifying image size as a means of adjusting article layout. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Notible Dates and Useful Information
Some Information that maybe of relavent use to the article.

Established 01 March 1872, by an act of the U.S. Congress and signed by President Ulysses S. Grant. Grant was the 18th president of the United States and Grant Village was named in his honor.

Designated an International Biosphere Reserve on 26 Oct 1976 Designated a World Heritage Site on 08 Sep 1978


 * Most of the above is already in the article. Geologyguy 14:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy In Size
I would like to point out that three different sizes (in area) are given for Yellowstone, In the first paragraph the reader is told.

"Yellowstone is the first and oldest national park in the world and covers 3,845 square miles (8879 km²)"

But 3,845 square miles is actually 9,958.5 square kilometers.

Also the article says that the area is

"Area: 	2,219,799 acres (8,983 km²)"

These two numbers, acres and sq.km are accurate (acres to km) however to not match the previously stated numbers. 3,845 square miles is actually 2,460,800 acres.

I would like to provide an answer but have none, I noticed the problem when trying to determine the largest national park in the country, depending on which numbers you take depends on if it is larger then the everglades.


 * Well, the linked Park Service page says 2,219,789 acres, 3472 sq mi, 8987 sq km.  Do you want to make the changes?  Thanks! Geologyguy 19:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Images
Millions of people have visited Yellowstone and many have fine images to share. I understand that some feel that they have the best images, and having taken them themselves, want to be able to share them with us. I encourage further image additions be discussed here on this talk page and I also think we need to come to some consensus of what are the best images to illustrate the major features and animal life well known in the park. Certainly, a few of geysers and hotsprings (paricularly Old Faithful), the lower falls of the Yellowstone, at least one of the major historical buildings and several of wildlife. More than 10 images is overkill and the remainder can all be seen though the link on the commons gallery page linked from the references section. I have removed the water flowing over the lower falls as I find it to not be helpful and we already have one image of the falls which demonstrates the cutting power of water by showing the falls and some of the canyon it has created. I encourage everyone to put their images in commons unless there is consensus for the addition here on the talkpage. Thanks.--MONGO 16:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Example:

I recommend this image be uploaded to commons and then the en.wiki upload image page should have a tag added. That way, the image is still very much visible via the link, but is then also easier utilized by other non-English wikis for their articles.--MONGO 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mongo. I think that this picture contributes to the article as it offers a unique perspective on Lower Falls. As Wikipedia is a free exchange project various authors have differing perspectives on how an article should look. I moved the picture to the bottom so that it would not interfere with the information at the top. However, I would like to keep it on the article because more pictures add(excepting clutter)to the value of the article. I ask that you just let the picture be at this time. Thanks.


 * This picture is clutter. It could be any waterfall on the planet, there is no context to the image that says "This is Yellowstone." MojaveNC 23:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review/Yellowstone National Park
I have added and enhanced this article greatly as of late, and to ensure it continues to be listed as a featured article, I have nominated it for review to see what areas it may need help with still. Comments here or at the above listed link are appreciated.--MONGO 21:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wolf reintroduction
Wolf reintroduction —Preceding unsigned comment added by Root Beers  (talk • contribs)  16:51, 8 April 2007
 * That is linked in the article, at the top of the "Fauna" section.--MONGO 00:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Who Made the Park a Park?
Is this relevant? I inserted it the other day, but someone removed it (Actually my version said "that year" instead of "in 1871", but this makes it clearer):
 * Senator William D. Kelley suggested in 1871 that "Congress pass a bill reserving the Great Geyser Basin as a public park forever". (reference brackets here)As reported in a letter from Jay Cooke to Ferdinand Hayden (close reference brackets here)

As I understand it, Kelley was the first politician in Washington to make the suggestion. Shouldn't this be included? Artemis-Arethusa 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I readded it, with a ref, slightly reworded.--MONGO 20:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It works better your way. Artemis-Arethusa 22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I removed it when I reverted another edit which was vandalism...thanks for fixing my typo too.--MONGO 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Trails of YNP breakout article
I noticed last year (investigating an AfD on a trail article-stub) that this article had almost nothing on the trail system. So I've written an article on that topic and linked it from the main article. So far I have a fair amount of sourced material on history of the trails, but nothing about the current system except the intro paragraph of how many miles and what notable things are seen on the trails. Can someone find sources describing the Thorofare Trail, Bechler Trail, Heart Lake Trail, et cetera as most notable? Please feel free to improve any part of that article or to add relevant category tags. Barno 01:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion - Overview Panorama
I just stumbled across some free images created for the NPS by Heinrich Berann and uploaded them to commons, one of them is a fairly high quality panorama drawing of the park. This might be useful for the article. --Dschwen 17:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)



That view must be looking south.--MONGO 18:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I added it to the World Heritage Site box for now. But this image would be a premium candidate for an image map! --Dschwen 08:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a large poster print of that Heinrich C. Berann image, it is gorgeous. Bought it in West Yellowstone. I didn't realize it was in the public domain, but I suppose he made it for the US Park Service. I don't have anything constructive to say-- just that whenever I see that image (which is daily!), I yearn to visit Yellowstone again. That Berann was The Master of the panorama "birds' eye view" of natural landscapes. I've seen several articles that attempt to simulate the Berann style with computer cartography, but nothing I've seen yet reaches his level of art. There are all kinds of interesting things about how he warped the normal curvature of the Earth to bring out detail in the foreground while still allowing for a horizon and sky. Anyway, seeing it just made me want to gush a little. If that image really is public domain, perhaps it can also be added to the Berann page. Pfly 08:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

sunlight levels?
why doesn't someone add the sunlight levels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.232.193 (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The largest nearly-intact temperate ecosystem?
That phrase appears in numerous books and web sites. But: Comments, please! Krasanen (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The climate in the most of the area is SUBALPINE, not temperate, because it lies at an altitude of 6000-9000 ft (2000-3000m), and consequently the growing season is very short.
 * All the national forest lands (and Grand Teton N.P.) surrounding the Yellowstone National Park and the wildernesses are NOT nearly-intact, notably the lower elevation ("temperate") areas in the west (Targhee N.F.).

If the previous statements are accepted, or if the word "temperate" is considered to mean everything between the tropics and the polar circles, there are MUCH larger nearly-intact areas in Canada and Siberia. Krasanen (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image map (painting by Heinrich Berann)
I have created an image map of Heinrich C. Berann's painting of Yellowstone. It already has a bunch of links to various features of the park, and hopefully, people will add more. I am adding it to the end of the geography section for starters, but if someone thinks it could be better located, no problem. The template is set to 1000 pixels, which I think is the minimum necessary considering the detail and the links.

To add to the image map go to Template:Yellowstone ImageMap. ArcticBartek (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Yellowstone Wildlife Location Map External Link
I deleted this link because it fails the WP:ELNO test. Although an interesting interactive map, the site exists to sell printed maps and make $$ off Google averts.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted the same link today - it still violates WP:ELNO--Mike Cline (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tremors
Many tremors / small earthquakes in Yellowstone recently - http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=yellowstone+earthquakes&ie=UTF-8&scoring=n - At some point may be worth adding to article. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a line at the end of the Geology section. If anyone else has more information, replace my line with it. Tr1290 (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

wikify
see the end of section Yellowstone National Park, not a correct citation. --87.78.22.116 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So fix it? Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Largest Intact Ecosys

 * Note five is extremely legit so I suppose it's verifiable that "Yellowstone is the largest intact ecosystem in the earth's northern temperate zone."
 * But is uninformative hyperbole and harms the article's credibility.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

62%?
Anyone got a citation for this number? ---current text--- Preserved within Yellowstone are many geothermal features and some 10,000 hot springs and geysers, 62% of the planet's known total.

---maybe this?--- Preserved within Yellowstone are many geothermal features and thousands of hot springs. Approximately half of the planet's geysers are located within the park (Bryan, T.S. 1995, Glennon, J.A. 2005)

References:
 * Bryan, T. S. (1995). The geysers of Yellowstone, 2nd edition. Niwot, Colorado: University Press of Colorado.


 * Glennon, J.A. (2005). World Geyser Fields, website, http://www.geyserworld.com/world.htm

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.234.20 (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Photographic Size
Due to the large variety of photographs and great desire for people to feature them on wikipedia, I am requesting that all photographs be kept at a maximum of 200px for uniformaty and to prevent clutter or clipping of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.207.137 (talk • contribs)

Added a gallery to the bottom of the page. It should help in the cleanup of this article.


 * I agree with AudeVivere's photographic edits. By removing the px size and leaving it as ((thumb)) only, it keeps the photograpsh at their default wiki article size and prevents them from overtaking the article. If a reader needs to see a larger version of a photograph, then he or she is free to click on it for an enlargemnt.--CamperStrike 10:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Second Yellowstone Gallery
More Images Can Be Found here:
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Yellowstone_National_Park

Many of them have never been used and some are quite good and may be article worthy. -CamperStrike  20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yellowstone Sub-articles
I will be working one yellowston sub-articles for Anthropology and Geography. The native people of Yellowstone have their own unique culture and deserve a separate article. Much like the French and Italians are similar but have very differant cultures. Another example would be Navajo and Chippawa (spelling may not be correct) indians, they lived on opposite ends of the US and have very differant cultural histories.
 * I'm not sure who you are but I'd like to help. It's outrageous that this article includes almost no mention of the violent dispossession of Shoshone, Crow, or other Indian peoples from this land to preserve this "pristine" landscape for tourists. Somewildthingsgo (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical Significance
In reference to the line "More than 1,000 sites of historical significance have been discovered." How exactly do you discover a site of historical significance? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that they have been established, not discovered? I'll change it in a couple days if nobody responds otherwise...-Jaardon 23:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the line seems a bit out of place there, the reference is to Native American sites, and I'm sure they were indeed discovered, mostly during the park era. Their significance may have been established, but the sites were probably discovered. Cheers Geologyguy 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree.--MONGO 01:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If they are Native American sites, might they be better described as Pre-Columbian or prehistoric than historic? -- Avenue 05:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I took that sentence out of the beginning of that paragraph and added a similar thought at the end..."and researchers have examined more than 1,000 archeological sites." Hope that works better.--MONGO 09:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would they be better described as pre-Columbian or prehistoric? Indian peoples that used to live there certainly have their own continuing, living history and they weren't forced to leave the area until the 1870s. Somewildthingsgo (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

New Infobox
WikiProject Historic sites has developed a new infobox (Infobox Historic Site) that may be useful in this article. It would combine the protected areas infobox and the World Heritage Sites infobox into a single infobox, taking less space and looking much better. With this being a featured article and all, I figured I would drop a comment on the talk page about this before editing, but the new infobox can be found at User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox3. If no one has any objection, I'll copy that infobox over to this article. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The infobox has now been added to the page. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Gray Wolves
I am pretty sure that the gray wolves are no longer endangered but are now Least Concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.105.247 (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Gray Wolves: Still Endangered, but not in the region encompassing Yellowstone --Mike Cline (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

History section
Should 'park creation and later history' be some sort of subsection of history, instead of a separate section? Seems illogical to me. ForeignWindowFrame (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ineed, it should. --mav (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

further reading section
We can use a further reading section? The digized book The Yellowstone national park: historical and descriptive... would work much better in such a section....would imagine there is more public domain books on yellowstone too that can be added- http://www.archive.org/details/yellowstonenati02chitgoog —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceJen (talk • contribs) 17:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
On my browser (Mozilla Firefox), the infobox has no space between it and the text. This makes the text more difficult to read. I've seen this on other national park pages. I've researched this but I haven't found out how to fix it yet. Would someone else look in to this? Val42 06:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

ja
Is there anyone who can speak Japanese and would be willing to contribute to the Japanese article?

Half of it is in the Latin alphabet. SFGiants 00:11, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Primary Resources
I'm adding references/ inline citations to some wonderful digitized primary resources on Yellowstone that might be of interest to historical researchers. There are quite of few of them, so I will be selective and not go overboard.

Chief Joseph?
Nothing about Chief Joseph and his band of Nez Perce passing through the park, fleeing the US Army a couple weeks after the Battle of the Big Hole? I'll try to get around to adding a sentence or two at least. It was a notable event in the park's early history, at the least. Pfly (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I added a paragraph about Native Americans and the national park. Chief Joseph's band crossing the park is perhaps the key event, but also notable is that the "Sheepeater" Shoshones had been permanent residents of what became the park until leaving per a treaty (unratified), and that after the Nez Perce crossing of the park and a Bannock band entering the park in 1878, and the Sheepeater Indian War, park superintendent Norris had a fort built to make sure Indians would be prevented from entering the park (the Sheepeater War did not occur in the park but influenced Norris's decision). I'm not sure where this fort was built. These three bits of history seem important enough to include in the park's History section. Unfortunately due to the years when these things took place, the 1870s and 1880s, chronologically they fit into the subsection called "Park creation"--and seem somewhat out of place among all the info about the early superintendents, rangers, and so on. I'm not sure if this is problematic or not. Seems acceptable. Pfly (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Pfly - Not bad but displays a bit of bias that I suspect is the result of the sources used. 1) There were two parties of tourists encountered by the Nez Perce--The Radersburg Party which entered the park via the Madison River and the Helena Party which entered the park via the Yellowstone River at Gardiner.  They were not all white, as the Helena party had a black cook. 2) There were definitely two men deliberately killed during the period, both from the Helena party--Charles Kenck who was killed near Alum Creek and Richard Dietrich who was murdered in a cabin at Mammoth. 3) The Nez Perce spent nearly two weeks in the park because they were lost and completely unfamilar with the territory.  It took the efforts of a man named Shively--not part of either tourist party, but just passing through the park--to guide them out via the Lamar Valley.  Shively was commandeered by the Indians to do this although he knew little of the park. 4) The Nez Perce trip through the park proved to be somewhat distructive as they burned Barronettes Bridge, the only bridge across the Yellowstone, did a lot of damage to the structures at Mammoth as well as other facilities just outside the park in the Gardiner area and in the Henry's Lake area.


 * I would strongly suggest reviewing the three chapters in Chittenden's book--Hostile Indians in the Park, Experiences of The Radersburg Tourists and Experiences of The Helena Tourists. Chittenden's account is based to some extent on first hand accounts by participants.  Many other Historical and Academic works on Yellowstone support Chittenden's account.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well! You know more about this than I do. I will try to find the time to check out that book. Yes, I think the two sources I used were less than ideal. The National Parks: America's Best Idea book probably has some outright misinformation, I suspect. Pfly (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean this book, from 1895. [I removed my own comments here for being unnecessarily long and off-topic, and am adding a better reply below] Anyhow, thanks for the source. I will try to improve my additions to this page at some point. Sorry for the lengthy reply (and any typos--gotta run!). Pfly (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read the book's chapter on the Nez Perce and have a few comments. The book focused on two parties, the Radersburg and Helena parties, but does not say they were the only parties encountered by the Nez Perce. Perhaps they were the only parties definitely known to have been encountered, at least in 1895 when the book was written. There is a mention, on page 121, of the Radersburg captives hearing "considerable firing in the timber" in the general area where two prospectors were known to have been at the time, that "this is thought to have been an attack upon" them, and that they "have never since been heard of". One member of the Helena party, Weikert, apparently chanced upon and joined up with "one McCartney, owner of the first hotel ever built in the Park". These things suggest to me that there were any number of other people in the park at the time besides the two parties described at length in the book. The Nez Perce numbered something over 700 people, with a horse herd well over 1,000, and it sounds like they did not travel in a single unit. It seems quite possible, given what the book says at least, that encounters other than the ones described occurred, perhaps involving violence, perhaps deaths. Maybe, maybe not. In any case I'll adjust the text I added about "one or two were killed" and find some word better than "white"--which is not only false as you pointed out, but sounds dated, at the very least. I'm not sure what to say instead. "Tourists" doesn't seem right, nor "park visitors". I haven't yet read the parts of the book dealing with the Bannocks or Sheepeaters (if they are addressed at all). Thanks again for the source. I didn't know, but it seems Nez Perce Creek is still the name of that stream: . The USGS topo map of it even has the word "grave" placed near its mouth, right there at the northern end of Lower Geyser Basin. Pfly (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh! I just realized the author of this book, Hiram M. Chittenden is the same Chittenden for whom the Ballard Locks of Seattle are named for (official name being the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks). I go there all the time. The salmon are running up the fish ladder there right now. What an unexpected connection. Pfly (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pfly – Good Changes. Re the grave site on the Nez Perce.  This belongs to Matti Shipley Culver (1856-1889), the wife of a park concessionaire who operated a small hotel near the site.  Matti died during March of 1889 while in the park and was buried near what is now the Nez Perce picnic area.  The grave stone is still standing today.  Nez Perce creek was formally named the “East Fork of the Firehole.”  You are correct to assume there were others in the park at the time of the Nez Perce passage.  Concessionaires, trappers, poachers, prospectors and other independent travelers frequented the area regularly, but were probably generally successful in avoiding the Indians.  The Radersburg and Helena parties were the most affected by the Nez Perce.  They were indeed tourists as that term was used fairly frequently, even in the 1870s to refer to visitors to the park. (In 1878, Erwin J. Stanley published “Rambles in Wonderland-UP THE YELLOWSTONE, AND AMONG THE GEYSERS AND OTHER CURIOSITIES OF THE NATIONAL PARK” and it contained references to tourists in the park. In 1883 Wisner published the “The Yellowstone National Park—Manual for Tourists”)  If you are truly interested in the history of the park, I would encourage you to read “The Yellowstone Story”, a two volume set by Aubry Haines published in the late 1970s.  This work, still in print today is probably the most comprehensive history of the park ever written.  Chittenden, as a member of the Corps of Engineers, played at very significant role in the development of the park’s infrastructure, especially its roads.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

An Opportunity To Excel--Yellowstone Article Is Too Long
The current article on Yellowstone has grown to a size that is a bit too long for good readability. This is a call to all editors and subject matter experts on Yellowstone to strive to create a few more section specific articles on Yellowstone National Park that would allow the movement of much of the knowledge contained herein into related articles. In this way, the Yellowstone National Park article will become not only a superb WP:SS article but provide for even better coverage of the many interesting and important aspects of the park.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has grown by more than 1000 words since passing its FAR in 2007. There are some sub-sections that could use summarizing and the detail moved to the daughter articles (many of which already exist). I don't see a need for an entire section on fires; that can be summarized and spun into the ==Biology and ecology== section. --mav 02:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Conservation versus Exploitation of the Yellowstone Park
As Yellowstone was the first National Park in the world,the development of conservation is closely linked with the park.After watching an inspiring and also shocking documentary by Ken Burns about the park,I believe it should be essential to have an article linked to the main section about the contrast between the competing forces of conservation and exploitation of the Yellowstone park.Trees that were wide enough had roads cut through them is one example of the barbaric attitudes of those times.The development of understanding about nature and "wilderness" is an important part of science and is known as ecology.I'm sure wikipedia editors can find a way to link Yellowstone to this subject.ThanksErn Malleyscrub (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Conservation biology and Conservation (ethic) link to Yellowstone NP, but this article does not link to those. I think it should and appropriate sources added, if necessary. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical Opposition to Park
The section of the history of the founding of Yellowstone does not mention local opposition to the the park; I have not the time right now to look further into this information, but an article from the New West Environment states: ''After the creation of Yellowstone NP in 1872, the Helena Gazette opined “We regard the passage of the act as a great blow to the prosperity of the towns of Bozeman and Virginia City….” Montana’s Congressional representatives were so opposed to the park that they introduced bills into Congress every session for twenty years to undesignate the park. When these attempts to dissolve the park failed, they tried other mechanisms to eliminate the park, including an attempt to split off the northern part of the park so a railroad could be built. To justify removing this area from the park, Montana’s delegate characterised the Lamar Valley as “wholly unattractive country”, hence not worthy of park protection. Others proposed damming the Yellowstone River just below Yellowstone Lake for hydroelectric power. This too was prevented—but only by the intervention of dreaded “outsiders” from the Eastern United States.'' http://www.newwest.net/topic/articlenrepa_local_interests_and_conservation_history/C73/L38/ If these facts can be verified from other sources, including various newspaper articles from the time period and the actual bills introduced to Congress, such opposition by Congressional representatives to the park should be mentioned briefly in the history of the formation of the park. I will look for other sources verifying this opposition when I have time. Anyone who has time please give it a shot. Nnoell (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think care should be taken in trying to lump all the incidents and events you lay out above under a single caveat: Opposition to the Park. The attempted exploitation of park territory and resources (northern range for the railroad) and (dams for irrigation in the Cascade Corner and Yellowstone River) are well known and documented in Yellowstone-A Wilderness Besieged, Bartlett (1985) as well as The Yellowstone Story, Haines, 1996.  The Yellowstone Lake dam proposals are mentioned in that article already.  Almost all legislation has some opposition, and Yellowstone experienced its share of attempts by politicans to do something different with a public resource and use Yellowstone as a pawn for other political purposes.  the Helena Gazette opined “We regard the... comment is really just a piece of trivia, not real tangible opposition because it was made at a time (1872) when very few people really knew what this Yellowstone Park thing was all about.  All the Helena journalists could percieve was that a lot of square miles of Montana and Wyoming territory was being taken off the table and draw the conclusion that it would indeed hurt the local economy.  How wrong they were. It can hardly be characterized as serious opposition, but more as a premature opinion that proved itself to be oh so wrong.  IMHO adding cryptic comments on this to the Yellowstone article would be misinterpreted and adding lengthy explanations so that all the facts and the context of those facts are presented would be to much for the article.  A standalone article, addressing all the various attempts to change the park from its original enabling legislation might be an interesting read.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that cryptic comments or lengthy explanations should not be present in this article, reserving these for a separate article if someone feels so inclined to work on it; *however*, a couple sentences briefly mentioning the presence of such a *significant opposition* is historically pertinent to mention because by *not* mentioning significant opposition there is the problem of implying that there was *no* significant opposition, which is untrue. I suggest a sentence that simply states, "There was considerable local opposition to the Yellowstone National Park during its early years. Local media and government persons expressed fear that the regional economy could not thrive if there remained the strict federal prohibitions against resource development within park boundaries." SOURCE: "Beauty and the Beet: The Dam Battles of Yellowstone National Park"  Author(s): Michael J. Yochim  Source: Montana: The Magazine of Western History, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Spring, 2003), pp. 14-27 Published by: Montana Historical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4520481 Accessed: 18/02/2010 19:06  That's just one source from an initial search and read through, I'll look into those books you've mentioned - thanks! Nnoell (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't mention every mammal species, every tree species, every plant species that exists there either...the "opposition" to the park's creation or continuance deserves little more than a mention...likewise, there is but one short paragraph regarding Bison that are slaughtered to "prevent to spread of brucellosis"...a more related subject that has much to do with the scope of the park...opposition to the park's creation may deserve a referenced comment or two...the tourist dollars the park provides to gateway communities and much of the surrounding region makes the park creation opposition of the 1800's a pretty old punchline at this point.--MONGO 12:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, it seems that its agreed that as long as its brief the opposition should be mentioned. I will add the above sentence and references.Nnoell (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I had to work on areally hard project and I almost gave up untill I saw this page. Thanks! P.S. Pfly, in Chief Joseph? the ? is a different color. You should edit that. Again thanks! Dreamland Master (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Gray Wolf and Endangered Species Status
FYI - The Gray Wolf is listed as an Endangered Species, however the population of wolves in Yellowstone is not (same reference). By including the phrase Gray Wolf, an endangered species, one gives the immediate impression that they are endangered in YNP. They are not, in YNP they are an experimental population. I think the endangered aspect adds nothing to the jist of this article but confusion and concur with its removal.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This came up in an unrelated discussion in another venue. in the poking around which grew out of that, I found this, which says that as of August 13, 2008--A federal judge had ordered the Bush administration to restore endangered species protections for gray wolves in Greater Yellowstone and the northern Rockies until the full case can be heard in court. Also see this September 28, 2008 source which says that in the week previous Washington protected the wolves all over again. I note that the relevant entry at the source you linked above is dated 01/28/2008 -- prior to the sources I've just mentioned. I don't know what has happened on this since 2008, but I thought I would mention this info here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, all dated information. A lot of folks would like to see the Wolf listed as Endangered in the Northern Rockies, but as of June 2010  it is a delisted species and until that officially changes, we should not bias this article by erroneously implying that wolves are listed as endangered in Yellowstone.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested External Links
I am a librarian at a large research library. I am following Wikipedia's policy "to encourage librarians and others in cultural heritage institutions to place links to their primary resources WP:CURATOR." I would like to add the following links under External Links to five historic photograph albums and sets of photographs we have digitized that contain more than one hundred 19th century images of the Yellowstone Park.

They are in the SMU Central University Library's "U.S. West: Photographs, Manuscripts, and Imprints collection (http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/all/cul/wes)."

You will find William Henry Jackson's Les geysers d'Amerique (26 photographs), ca. 1871-1875. http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm4/results.php?CISOOP1=exact&CISOFIELD1=CISOSEARCHALL&CISOROOT=/wes&CISOBOX1=Ag1982.0124x

I believe the Jackson photos are particularly useful in light of the role his images placed in the Park's creation as part of the Hayden geological survey (also documented in the Park Creation section of the article). I would also be willing to add some of the photos to Wikicommons and place one in the article. The letterhead on the mount of these images is "Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Survey of the Territories. Prof. F. V. Hayden in charge." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitaldomain (talk • contribs) 18:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You will also find four albums and sets by Frank J. Haynes, ca. 1880-1890:

Broad panel views (12 photographs): http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm4/results.php?CISOOP1=exact&CISOFIELD1=CISOSEARCHALL&CISOROOT=/wes&CISOBOX1=Broad+panel+views%2C+Yellowstone+Park,

Yellowstone Park, Portfolio, brown cover (22 photographs): http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm4/results.php?CISOOP1=exact&CISOBOX1=Yellowstone+National+Park&CISOFIELD1=CISOSEARCHALL&CISOOP2=all&CISOBOX2=portfolio%2C+brown+cover&CISOFIELD2=part&CISOROOT=/wes&t=s,

Album, tan cover (24 photographs): http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm4/results.php?CISOOP1=exact&CISOBOX1=Yellowstone+National+Park&CISOFIELD1=CISOSEARCHALL&CISOOP2=all&CISOBOX2=album%2C+tan+cover&CISOFIELD2=part&CISOROOT=/wes&t=s, and

Portfolio, marbled cover (12 photographs): http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm4/results.php?CISOOP1=exact&CISOBOX1=Yellowstone+National+Park&CISOFIELD1=CISOSEARCHALL&CISOOP2=all&CISOBOX2=portfolio%2C+marbled+cover&CISOFIELD2=part&CISOROOT=/wes&t=s.

I would appreciate your feedback before I place links to these pages.

Digitaldomain (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sincere thanks for your interest in Yellowstone. The links above are probably not appropriate for the Yellowstone article itself, but they certainly are useful for further research on Yellowstone and related articles.  I would suggest you move them to: Yellowstone Task Force] page with a concise explaination of their contents.  My quick perusal of them makes me believe they will be useful for lots of Yellowstone related articles, especially the F. J. Haynes stuff.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Early expeditions
In 1873, a "Lieutenant Jones" led an expedition across the park that hasn't gotten much attention. Tomorrow I'm going to look at the detailed official report from it and will add relevant material here or in the article on early explorations. In 1874 there was a surveying party that ran the WY W bdry line through the Park. Same in 1879 for N bdry.Jeeb (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits by 文子言木文子言木
The edits by 文子言木文子言木 removed useful information without explanation. That which was added was not encyclopedic IMHO. Would need a better source and more context. – droll  &#91;chat&#93;  07:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Addition of controversial and poorly sourced Islamic content
User:Lkmen has persistently attempted to add Islamic related content to this article that is poorly sourced and has not been discussed with a wider editorial audience to gain consensus. As such I have semi-protected this article for 1 week for forestall additional edit warring on this topic.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * None of it is from a reliable source...its all speculation and looks to be entirely based on original research and incorporating it would be a policy violation. Even so, we need to stay on topic and maintain scope in our articles.--MONGO 23:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to commend the action that has so far been taken in removing the inappropriate content. I stand behind the actions by others. – droll   &#91;chat&#93;  05:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This kind of thing is why we have polices like WP:RS in the first place. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Because of continued edit warring on this material, I have started a wider dicussion about this material here --Mike Cline (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ::* Hello Mike and others, I hope you all will notice that my latest edits did NOT have all these info. My new edit is: (In Qur'an: "Until, when he reached the far west he saw the sunset on a hot spring of water which has a black clay, and he found near it a people". < .ref>Qur'an 18:86..)


 * As you see here: It is NOT WP:OR because it is a quote from Qur'an. And, it has 100% WP:RS because if any reader on Yellowstone wants to know what does major religions say about Yellowstone he will look for descriptions of places in its holy or text books. So, if he or she wants to know what does Islam say about Yellowstone he/she will look at Qur'an as No.1 source to know such a thing. Qur'an is 100% WP:RS about what does Islam say about anything. So, my edit is WP:RS and NOT WP:OR.


 * Now, does that verse talk about Yellowstone literally or through descriptions? Yes it does for sure. This very clear. No doubt about it. Why? Because Yellowstone is the only place in the (far west) that has (a hot spring of water which has a black clay) and (it is large enough so you can see the sunset on it) and (there were people living near it in the ancient times). If you, or anybody in the world can tell me of any place in the far west has these descriptions other than Yellowstone I will stop this edit. Lkmen (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your own unsourced interpretation of the Qur'an is original research, and is not permitted in Wikipedia articles, whether right or wrong -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is NOT about interpretations. These are clear descriptions in a clear quote. But, let us put it this simple. If any person can tell us about any place in the far west that has these descriptions other than Yellowstone, then I have no right to argue or re-add that quote in Yellowstone pages again. It is this simple. It is NOT about anybody interpretations. Lkmen (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but wikipedia does not work like that. Unless the Qur'an specifically identifies the quote as referring to Yellowstone it may not be used and remains your own synthesis. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 20:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Are literal names and unambiguous geographic coordinates every thing in WP?! What about clear descriptions in a clear quote?! Lkmen (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To avoid this being repeated in 3 places, the main discussion is at No original research/Noticeboard -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And to clarify for future readers, I'll add what I said there. This is really simple. Even if a religious text used the word Yellowstone, we wouldn't use it because it would be a primary source. We would only use reliable sources that referred to the passage in the religious text and said that the passage might be referring to in this case Yellowstone or Yellowstone Lake. And it would have to be shown that this is a 'significant' opinion in the religion. Unless you can show that multiple reliable sources (by our criteria at WP:RS) make this connection, I would ask you to drop this. Dougweller (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition to what's already been said on this, the translation used by Lkmen (Dr Ghali's) for 18:86 is very different to widely used translations and has heavy layers of interpretation over the actual Arabic of the Qur'an. See http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/18/86/default.htm for many translations to compare. Pickthall has more literally: "Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout." Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great_in_the_Qur%27an Gamma737 (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, the reference is ambiguous at best. Case closed.--MONGO 14:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Park Size
The link referenced in the article states the park's size in no uncertain terms: "3,472 square miles or 8,987 square km." However, it's listed as "3,468.4 sq mi (8,983 km2)" in both the article introduction and the infobox. I tried to correct it (the infobox quoted it correctly while the text intro quoted a different number taken from... somewhere) but it was reverted back to a formula, and now both numbers are completely wrong.

It's nice that we can have wikipedia calculate the area automatically, but we shouldn't do so when it means the numbers don't match the fact sheet provided by the park itself. I've already been reverted once; someone else can fix it. Mwoody450 (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The source I used says the park encompasses 2,219,790.71 acres which calculates to 2219790.71 acres, and some change. The figures are based on the best data I know of. I don't understand your point. Is it the source you disagree with or what.&#32;– droll  &#91;chat&#93;  17:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahhhh gotcha, the reference numbers have moved around a little. The problem would be, then, that there needs to be a little [1] next to those figures in the main article like there is now in the infobox. As it is, it looks like the info is taken from [5], and that one lists completely different numbers. Mwoody450 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I added the tags you mentioned. I agree that they should have been there.&#32;– droll  &#91;chat&#93;  21:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)