Talk:Yellowstone National Park/Archive 2

Oldest Park in the World
No doubt it is one of the oldest, but the oldest? "Bogdkhan Uul, just south of Ulanbator, Mongolia, is the oldest national park in the world. That’s right — it predates Yellowstone by over 100 years. Established by the Mongolian government in 1778, it was originally chartered by Ming Dynasty officials in the 1500s as an area to be kept off limits to extractive uses, protected for its beauty and sacred nature.In 1778, it had 23 full time park rangers on staff.". --Karljoos (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but I think we can accept the NPS document as a more reliable source than the Nature Conservancy blog. (No offense to the bloggers intended.) It really comes down to what constitutes a "national park", and a lot of that has to do with what is called a national park. Rivertorch (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this source and this one ? I imagine that the best definition of national park would be the one that suits best Yellowstone as first protected area, right?--Karljoos (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Maybe is time to expand Bogd Khan Uul. --Elekhh (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. There are protected areas that aren't national parks (e.g., state and provincial and private parks, wildlife refuges, national monuments, and so on) and there are national parks that aren't protected in the way that parks like Yellowstone are (think U.K., for instance). Rivertorch (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of additional sources, with no certain conclusion. From Vegetation dynamics of Mongolia: "[Mongolian citizens] set aside the Bogd Khan Ull Mountain range...as perhaps one of the world oldest National Parks in 1778." So at least one other source calls it a national park dating to 1778, although the poor writing gives me pause. Also, there seem to be factual errors: It wasn't "Mongolian citizens" who "set aside" Bogd Khan but rather, it seems, the Chinese emperor (Qianlong Emperor presumably). From Arguments for protected areas: multiple benefits for conservation and use: "[In 1778] Emperor of Manchur passed the necessary resolutions to protect the sacred values of Bogd Khan mountains. This sacred natural site has, along with the other 15 sacred mountains in the country, been protected and revered for centuries..." The chapter goes on to discuss the protection of "sacred places" in general, pointing to a great many such places, with protection dating back very far in some cases. In short, it might be worth making special mention of Bogd Khan Uul, but then again, it seems to me more research ought to be done first. From what I can tell, it counts as a "national park" today, but whether it did in 1778 it another issue. Pfly (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My sense of it is that Yellowstone is widely considered to be the first national park, and the preponderance of sources support that. Ironically enough, one of those is a UNESCO press release; I'll add it to the article in a minute. While Bogdkhan Uul's protected status came first, that doesn't make it the first national park. If a reliable source calls it that, then it's appropriate to say so (with attribution) in the Bogdkhan Uul article. I don't think that should affect the Yellowstone article, however, or even merit a mention, unless there's some sort of notable controversy or a campaign in the works to divest Yellowstone of its "first NP" status. If anything, the lede should be changed to note Yellowstone's commonly accepted first-in-the-world status, which will be doubly sourced in a moment. (Karljoos, I wish you'd wait for consensus rather than simply reverting.) Btw, I agree with Elekhh about expanding the other article, although a general fix to the stub might be in order first. It says the park is 7440 feet tall. Rivertorch (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "A national park is a reserve of natural or semi-natural land, declared or owned by a government, that is restricted from most development and is set aside for human recreation and environmental protection." (see National park). I believe that the mongolian reserve is a national park by that definition, but of course, the first reserve to be given the exact two words "National" and "Park" to refer to such protected areas was Yellowstone. Why don't we leave it as "first one in the Americas and one of the first ones in the world"?--81.44.203.176 (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's one possible solution—it is verifiably correct—but I think we should do better, per multiple reliable sources. The claim that Yellowstone is the first has been made for many decades and can be amply sourced. I don't believe a compelling case has been made to downgrade that claim in this article. We're not here to reveal the truth of the matter, merely to report what reliable third-party sources have said about it. (A Wikipedia article, btw, is not a reliable source. Even if it were, your argument would have a problem with synthesis.) Rivertorch (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable third party sources which are in apparent conflict, we have to sort them out, rather than simply giving priority to the most-wide spread possible misconception. One point of difference is probably the character of "national", as in the US this implies the democratic ownership by the people (not government) and access for all. The IUCN definition also includes that "visitors are allowed to enter" however seem to be neutral regarding the character of the government. The question than is, what did "national" mean in 18th century Mongolia. Regarding the link to "synthesis", we also have a fifth pillar, which states that we shouldn't be stopped by wikilawyering from improving Wikipedia .--Elekhh (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

My only thought is that concussions based on limited research should be avoided. Going with what other reliable encyclopedic sources say might be the best choice in this case. I don't have access to a recent edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica or the World Book Encyclopedia so I can't offer anything further.&#32;– droll  &#91;chat&#93;  00:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If we start to give advice to each other, than in the same spirit of minimizing stress to all parties, mine would be to do things in right order: (1) do the full research and expand Bogd Khan Uul, (2) describe its historic relevance in national parks and only after that (3) come back here and do adjustments regarding Yellowstone as required. Btw I also think that we should aim to be more comprehensive and reliable than other encyclopedias, otherwise what's the point of editing here? --Elekhh (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Elekhh. Our Bogd Khan Uul is in dire need of attention. Our page on national park could probably be improved. I note that Wikipedia seems to have a page on sacred grove but none on protected sacred places in general—Bogd Khan Uul being a protected sacred place but not a "grove". Further, neither the sacred grove nor the national park pages get into much detail about the difference between the two, even in cases where both are given the highest level of protection from a centralized government. The chapter I posted above, "Beyond Belief: Linking Faiths and Protected Areas to Support Biodiversity Conservation" in Arguments for protected areas: multiple benefits for conservation and use, might be useful in teasing it out. If nothing else, it seems clear that if protected sacred spaces are synonymous with national parks then Yellowstone is no where near the oldest. But when I see the words on Yellowstone's arch, File:Yellowstone North Gate.jpg, I sense a break from the older notion of protecting sacred/religious places. Anyway, I know I've seen other books that explore these topics. Pfly (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Elekhh suggestion seems helpful to me. Bogd Khan Uul was made a "sacred mountain reserve" in 1778. I think Pfly is correct in asserting that Yellowstone represents a break from an earlier concept of a protected area. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of Yellowstone, says: ""The park was established by the U.S. Congress on March 1, 1872, as the nation’s—and the world’s—first national park". World Book says: ""Yellowstone National Park, the oldest national park in the world" (not on the Web, can't link). In addition, The Columbia Encyclopedia agrees, calling Yellowstone ""the world's first national park".
 * Fascinated by the question, I ended up running a lot of searches. So many of the results identified Yellowstone as the world's first national park that it was sort of mind-boggling. I am generally not a fan of Google hit comparisons, but the results in this case are instructive in terms of both quantity and quality: the search string Bogdkhan "world's first national park" yields 496 hits, none of which meet WP:RS as far as I can tell, while Yellowstone "world's first national park" returns 697,000 hits that run the gamut from U.S. and foreign governments, major magazines and newspapers, NPOs, university sites, and everything else but the kitchen sink. Some of the more interesting sources to support Yellowstone's being the world's first national park include:
 * UK Association of National Park Authorities;
 * "History of Parks and Forests" at State of Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management
 * French Ministry of Ecology;
 * a China Daily article about China's first national park;
 * the National Geographic Society;
 * the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues;
 * the BBC programme Unnatural Histories: Yellowstone;
 * magazines as diverse as Newsweek, LIFE, Field & Stream, Popular Mechanics, SPIN, Backpacker, and New Scientist from the 1960s to very recently (Various search methods employed, mostly unlinkable but repeatable by anyone with basic library access) ;
 * newspapers, such as USA Today and The Times of London;
 * a large number of peer-reviewed journal articles from a wide variety of disciplines (most of them in the natural sciences and only indirectly relevant: a passing mention of Yellowstone's "world's first" status);
 * a plethora of books ranging from the middlebrow to the scholarly. Google Books returned over 2400 results for Yellowstone "world's first national park", including one with that exact title. There are far too many relevant results to list even a sample, but here's one: Stock, Catherine McNicol and Robert D. Johnston, eds. The Countryside in the Age of the Modern State Ithaca: Cornell, 2001..
 * I am perfectly willing to agree that Bogd Khan Uul met certain criteria that may be reasonably assigned to the term "national park" before Yellowstone did, but I believe that the former currently cannot be considered the world's first national park for the purposes of the Yellowstone article because, at best, doing so would be placing undue emphasis on a viewpoint far outside the mainstream; it also would appear to violate WP:V and WP:NOR. Rivertorch (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what Rivertorch has researched should be as exhaustive as can be expected to support the Yellowstone was the first national park in the world wording. I have no doubt earlier well preserved, wilderness, natural and or spritual ecosystems were preserved and set aside prior to Yellowstone...but I've never found evidence that suggested that these areas were protected under the same criteria that is found in modern national park designations.--MONGO 02:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The first national park in the world to actually be officially referred to as a National Park is the Royal in Sydney, Australia. In fact it was originally called "The National Park". Azarov98 (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, why do I bother... Azarov98 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think, as a compromise, the best wording would be something like. "Yellowstone is widely held to be the oldest National Park in the world" (which actually reflects the huge number of sources), as long as we have reliable secondary sources discussing the quandary and discussing the other two parks of Mongolia and Australia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that seems like a good idea. I've been bold and changed the lede per your suggestion. I also removed an instance of the claim from later in the article (that one seemed like a gratuitous aside) and moved its ref up to the lede. Maybe there should be a very short discussion of the question somewhere in the body of the article. Rivertorch (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

biome
What biome is yellowstone?

Not the surronding area, but the actually geothermal springs, the flats, etc? Volcanic? 69.132.69.87 (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:TALK for talk page guidelines. Questions may be helpful to you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You might try asking at the Reference Desk. Rivertorch (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Weasels?
"widely held to be the first national park in the world." This kind of tentative writing lacks grip and grit. You've uncovered enough evidence to be definite about it (discussion above).

"The caldera is considered an active volcano. It has erupted with tremendous force several times in the last two million years".

That is not how 'active volcano' is described on its own page. There it says: "A popular way of classifying magmatic volcanoes is by their frequency of eruption, with those that erupt regularly called active, those that have erupted in historical times but are now quiet called dormant or inactive, and those that have not erupted in historical times called extinct". Not the greatest definition, maybe, but there it is. It is crystal clear that the caldera does not meet this definition by a very, very long way. As a volcano it is dormant or extinct.

I'm pretty shocked to see such slack writing in an FA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * From reading above you'll see the weasel on "oldest" is because 90+% of the internet calls it the oldest, 2 wikipedia articles say otherwise. There are 2 parks (one called The National Park) which were government founded before Yellowstone. But most sources say otherwise. So it's weasel or contradict. 83.70.170.48 (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Inferno Crater Lake
This new stub claims to have the largest geyser in the world? I thought one of the Yellowstone ones had that so I tagged it as dubious. Anyone in the know might be able to confirm. --S.G.(GH) ping! 13:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Depending on the criteria, Excelsior Geyser or Steamboat Geyser are or were the largest geysers in Yellowstone. Steamboat is described as the "world's tallest currently active geyser." "Largest" could mean just about anything. I'll see if I can find some sort of comparison, but it will depend on height, width, activity level and historical activity.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I find the term "geyser-like" as used in the article problematic considering the description of a geyser. Is there such a thing as an "underwater geyser"?  It seems to me that this geothermal feature is nothing more than a large hot spring. Yellowstone lake is full of underwater geothermal features similar to this. Once we agree on what it is, we might discuss its size relative to the stuff in Yellowstone.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I think a few of the hot springs in Yellowstone have internal geyser-like features and were they to erupt they may create some very tall geysers above the pools they reside in. Steamboat is so erratic that even though it's generally considered the tallest active, it goes long periods between eruptions of significance and they aren't always the same height or volume. It might be interesting to see what geologists think constitutes a regular and tallest geyser...it may be that Old Faithful is the best candidate for regularity and height.--MONGO 14:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A myth?
See "Is the Wolf a Real American Hero?" opinion in The New York Times by Arthur Middleton March 9, 2014 User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "This story — that wolves fixed a broken Yellowstone by killing and frightening elk — is one of ecology’s most famous. It’s the classic example of what’s called a “trophic cascade,” and has appeared in textbooks, on National Geographic centerfolds and in this newspaper. Americans may know this story better than any other from ecology, and its grip on our imagination is one of the field’s proudest contributions to wildlife conservation. But there is a problem with the story: It’s not true." User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Middleton touches on the issue but he's a little bit off by saying that "it's not true". Some of it is true but it's much more complex than all that. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sold an idea only because they had to since the powers that influence and shape that agency told them to do so, and told the National Park Service to shut up and eat it.--MONGO 11:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Caldera Volcano potential erruption
I've heard that animals have been noticed moving away from this volcano and that it has the potential to cover the USA with ash... is there any truth to this? Thank you Jerry Fitch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.78.196 (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * None what so ever. Pure bunk.  Do the research and see. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Utter nonsense. See this . If the volcano (or any other large volcano) did erupt, it would potentially deposit ash over a large portion of North America, but that's not news.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism
Imlasalskal has vandalized this page at least 3 times since my edit, I think they should be banned. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal edit request on 30 June 2015
I propose that Yellowstone National Park be merged into Yellowstone Plateau. I think that the content in the Yellowstone Plateau article is the explained in the context of Yellowstone National Park, and the Yellowstone Plateau article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Yellowstone National Park will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. 2601:183:4000:D5BD:A512:F53C:7378:77F4 (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You want to merge this article, which is a featured article, into a one paragraph article?--MONGO 21:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you want Yellowstone Plateau merged into Yellowstone National Park rather than the other way around, which would be absurd. However, I think a detailed (even if it at present is a single paragraph) article on the geological feature is undue weight in the article on the park. An FA on an NPS unit shoehorned into an article on a geologic feature would be bizarre.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep them separate, especially considering how odd the Yellowstone Plateau, which is actually a grouping of several distinct plateaus (see Plateaus of Yellowstone National Park) summary is. "It is a popular site for tourists" is a vague nod to what actually attracts the tourists, which is the park itself.Pistongrinder (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

First National Park in America
While the lead states that Yellowstone is believed to be the first national park in the world, it says nothing about Yellowstone being the first national park in America, which is a well-known and documented fact. This is inferred but not directly stated. I believe that this shouldn't be left out, as it is one of Yellowstone's many claims to fame. Is there a way to rewrite the lead to include this? Perhaps say, "Yellowstone, the first national park in America and widely held to be the first national park in the world..." Thoughts?Pistongrinder (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good suggestion. Fixed --Mike Cline (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

long sentence in opening paragraph
I respectfully disagree. "Yellowstone, the first National Park in the U.S. and widely held to be the first national park in the world,[6] is known for its wildlife and its many geothermal features, especially Old Faithful Geyser, one of the most popular features in the park." could be improved and simplified by turning it into two sentences. This feels like an attempt to cram information into one long sentence.

I'll make no further changes since my edit was reverted, it is not my intent to start that kind of back and forth but I at least wanted to state my opinion on the matter.

If I am alone in holding this opinion i will gracefully accept that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiersgarr (talk • contribs) 02:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Your edit rendered the following:
 * "It was established by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on March 1, 1872.[4][5], and is widely held to be the first national park in the world,[6]. It is is known for its wildlife and its many geothermal features, especially Old Faithful Geyser, one of the most popular features in the park.[7]"
 * As I indicated in my edit summary when I reverted, you inadvertently embedded some of the new text inside reference tags, which made it invisible and meant the bit about its being widely held to be the first national park in the world was effectively removed.
 * I have no strong opinion on whether it should be one or two sentences. I thought it was fine as one, so I reverted instead of just fixing your error, but if you want to try again, I won't revert again. Just click Preview before you save and make sure you didn't accidentally hide any words you want our readers to see. And please don't let my reverting you dissuade you from making further edits. Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Zone of Death"
I feel like the "Zone of Death" aspect of Yellowstone is notable enough and interesting enough to be its own article. Thoughts? ɯ ɐ ɔ 💬 13:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd say not. There's all manner of misinformation, speculation, and general ridiculousness out there on the subject, but I doubt there's enough reliably sourced information to build an article. (You're referring, I assume, to the Legal jurisdiction section.) Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   14:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yunye2017.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Why does Yellowstone include tiny slivers of Montana and Idaho?
Seems odd. My guess is that it's to make sure the federal government would always have jurisdiction, and if so, there must be a story behind that, but that's just a guess. 47.20.160.104 (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)captcrisis
 * Read the "History" section. All three states were territories at the time of the park's formation, and their boundaries were not set till they became states in 1889–90, well after the park was delineated. — Gorthian (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks but looking into the articles on the Montana, Wyoming and Idaho Territories, they show that as of 1868 (before the Yellowstone area was surveyed) their boundaries were already identical to what became the state borders. And one could assume that by 1868 it was a foregone conclusion that these territories would become states at some point in the future.  24.44.238.65 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)captcrisis


 * The primary reason that the park boundaries fall within Montana is that it was private explorers from Montana, public servants from Montana Territorial government, the US Cavalry in Montana and Montana's congressional delegate that promoted the creation of the park. At the time of creation (1872), almost nothing was known about access to the park's regions from the southwest (Idaho), south and east (Wyoming). All exploration had taken place with entry into the park's region from the Gardiner area with some exits down the Madison Valley. Much of the original boundaries were just guesses as the entire region had not been yet thoroughly mapped. Geography played a role as well as lawmakers guessed where the best boundary should be.  There have been a number of boundary adjustments over time to deal with anomalies, road construction and development contraversies.  In the end however, Montana authorities would never stand for boundaries that didn't include parts of Montana. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Climate and snow cover
There's been some back and forth over the last several days, with content involving climate and snow cover being inserted, reverted, and then reinserted. As of this post, it's back in, with additional sourcing which I don't have time to review just now. The user adding the content is not registered and has a fast-changing IP address, so it's pointless to try to contact them on their talk page. I'm opening this thread in the hope that they'll see this, become aware of the bold-revert-discuss cycle that exemplifies best practice, and discuss it here on the talk page. It's futile trying to conduct a conversation via edit summaries. Rivertorch  FIRE WATER   22:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

room for more research on Yellowstone?
Hi, I'm interested in improving information about Yellowstone if possible. This page looks fantastic and I see that it's a FA. I also noticed that there's a separate page for the early history of Yellowstone. If there is enough material, I could possibly work on another history page for the 20th century... but is there a need for such a page? Thanks, Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox picture
Hey

Is a Grand Prismatic Spring image not better for this article?

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure. Let's make sure there's consensus for such a prominent change, at any rate. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   15:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I for one like the original "waterfall" image, it seems to better image for a national park. Reverting an article to your preferred version is not how consensus works, I replaced the original image until a consensus can be reached in the discussion. (Infobox image already replaced) - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Infoboxes should have easily identified subjects. Readers not familiar with Grand Prismatic are going to go "what's that thing?"  Acroterion   (talk)   18:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yellowstone has various famous features, including several colorful pools among its hot springs (Grand Prismatic is one of them), but I don't think any of those quite rise to the level of iconic. An even more famous feature, Old Faithful, is merely one of thousands of active geysers in the park, and its cone isn't especially distinguished. (If not for the crowds that routinely occupy wide-angle shots of its eruptions, it would be hard even for people who have seen it multiple times to identify it definitively.) By contrast, an upstream shot of the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone, including the Lower Falls, is iconic. It's instantly recognizable as Yellowstone; it looks like nowhere else on Earth. That seems like a desirable attribute for an infobox image. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   20:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll follow your judgement. By the way, I think we should mention that Yellowstone is as much a US NP as a UNESCO WHS. It should be mentioned in the introduction somewhere. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC).


 * Maybe so, but not in the lead sentence. I've restored the earlier, stable version of that sentence. Your changes to the wording and links there were not an improvement, I think. National park, not List of National Parks of the United States, is a better link there because it leads to a general article that explains what a national park is, and that provides global perspective. Also, the wording "Yellowstone National Park is a United States National Park" is problematic. For one thing, it uses the phrase "National Park" twice in close succession, which is awkward to read and unnecessary (hey, this thing called a park is a park!). Also of concern, the phrase "United States National Park" is not commonly in use, so we shouldn't use it there. You've been reverted repeatedly. Please do not make this type of change to the lede without getting consensus first. (See WP:BRD for best practices.) Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   15:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think a landscape photography is more appropriate for the infobox rather than the current one; I changed it unlike the subject of the photography as you asked. I think we should use the term "United States National Park" linked to the list because there catch phrase has to inform the audience of the country Yellowstone is in. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC).
 * The first sentence says: "Yellowstone National Park is a national park located in the U.S. states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho." Which of our readers do you suppose are unable to tell from that sentence what country Yellowstone is in? Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   15:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Lead sentence: "Yellowstone National Park, located in the U.S. states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, was established on March 1, 1872 by Congress and Prez U.S. Grant to protect a yellow (stone) canyon, many geysers, hot springs, mudpots, a huge lake, mountains, meadows, and many cool big-ass animals from too much human exploitation by enlisting first the U.S. Army then a bunch of park rangers to enforce many rules and regs on the ever-increasing number of tourists." - readers get the what, where, when, who, why & how most efficiently & can get off this page & on with their next bit of websurfing. ;) But seriously, a landscape image of the canyon is a better choice as it does more clearly illustrate the reason for the park's name by showing a lot more of the canyon walls, but the 'Valued image' choice is too over-saturated. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Featured articles generally have been through a substantive peer review and featured article review...and this article was vastly expanded and reevaluated since it was originally made featured. The falls shot is iconic. Otherwise, an image of Old Faithful Geyser erupting would be about the only other thing that might be as specific.--MONGO 00:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @ Brian W. Schaller: I agree that the valued image is slightly oversaturated. There's also too much contrast, which makes it look vaguely like a Bierstadt painting as much as a photo. On the other hand, the current image looks slightly undersaturated to me. Much depends on time of day, cloud conditions, and so on, but in my experience the canyon walls are a bit more colorful than that.
 * How about one of these: option 1, option 2, or option 3? I like option 1 because it makes the non-falling river water a more saturated green, which looks (to me) more like it actually looks. Option 2 might be seen as a little fanciful, I suppose, but it's a wonderful picture. Option 3 doesn't seem quite as good as the other two, imho, but I think it may still be an improvement on the status quo. Rivertorch   <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   17:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm, (bear in mind, I'm a very critical person)... #1 shows no more of the canyon walls than the current image & has a distracting out-of-focus rock in foreground (could be cropped); #2 is overly dark on left, unsharp in larger sizes & the falls are partly blown out (overexposed); #3 shows too much sky & not enough canyon, & the falls are slightly off center rather than toward center/top, or at a rule-of-thirds point. I agree that the current image is slightly undersaturated making the yellow a bit too muted for an impressive lead image. Actually, I just looked quickly thru the Commons cat & don't really like any of the over 200 falls images currently there, even my own which is an old 35mm negative scan from 2001, cropped vertically & resized. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If the consensus is that a photograph is more valuable than the current Valued Image, perhaps we should nominate that other photo as Valued Image for the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone? Just for consistency... —hike395 (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I would go for option 3 if the photo of the falls I choose did not satisfy you. What about "national park of the United States"? WhatsUpWorld (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble taking your suggested wording seriously. Are you suggesting someone might think that a national park "located in the U.S. states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho" would be a national park of some country other than the U.S.? Your proposed wording would both be redundant and sound stilted. (By the way, please read Help:Talk pages, specifically the bit about indenting.)


 * Hey Brian W. Schaller: Yeah, I agree that there are no superb images of the Lower Falls at Commons. I don't agree that the proportion of sky to canyon is a problem in image 3, or that the falls being slightly off-center is a problem, but what if it were cropped slightly to adjust those things? Would you prefer it to the status quo then? Rivertorch   <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   17:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Rivertorch: Many of the Commons canyon/falls images are pretty good, and with some careful cropping, selective brightening/darkening, plus contrast and saturation adjustments, many of them could be made much better. I generally don't edit other's photographic work, except in my imagination. Just had a look at my Yellowstone canyon images from this past summer & uploaded a sample image for an idea of the angle I'm thinking about. It was a cloudy day & I didn't push the contrast/saturation much while editing (was shot in color 'faithful' mode), to keep it as realistic as possible. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying we should say "Yellowstone National Park is a national park of the United States located in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho". WhatsUpWorld (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it sounds stilted. "National park of the United States" reads more like a Google translation than something a native speaker of English would write. It also leaves "located" a little ambiguous, which is a grammatical problem. Is there anything specific about the current wording that you think poses a problem? If not, maybe the adage "if it ain't broke" applies. Rivertorch   <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   15:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should at least link 'national park' to a list of U.S. National Parks, and transfer the term 'U.S.' before 'national parks' rather than before 'states'. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But that sounds odd. (Try reading it aloud.) List of national parks of the United States is already found under "See also". It would be an inappropriate link for the lead paragraph, both because it assumes that readers know exactly what a national park is and because it fails to provide a properly global perspective. Rivertorch   <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   16:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We do not have the right to presume that a reader already knows everything. I think it is better to somehow link United States to national park. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a Featured Article, which means (among other things) that a significant number of experienced editors have judged its wording, links, and images to be of exceptionally high quality. By no means does that mean it's perfect, but it does mean that you should be able to articulate compelling reasons for making changes to it. You haven't done so, and you do not have consensus for the changes you've been making. Consensus is the foundation of this project. Forgive me for being blunt—I don't doubt you mean well—but it really doesn't matter that you think something "is better". One opinion is not consensus. Rivertorch   <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   04:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Two historical photos
In case they are of any interest, I just uploaded two photos from the late 1950s:   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 18:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Yellowstone West Thumb Ranger Station.jpg
 * File:Yellowstone bear in 1950s.jpg

Dubious tag
The article lead reads "Half of the world's geothermal features are in Yellowstone, fueled by this ongoing volcanism", a very strong statement that is supported by a an old version of the National Park Service site. It seems difficult to quantify geothermal features, so while no doubt there are many of these in Yellowstone, are they realy half? What methodology and database was used? Statements like this are should come from peer-reviewed scholarly sources. Lappspira (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I updated the source to https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/geysers.htm and changed the wording from "geothermal features" to "geysers" to reflect the source. Unesco is used to support the claim elsewhere in the article, and I'll see if I can find a source that includes worldwide data. –dlthewave ☎ 17:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Found both a book and a journal article that supports half of all world's geysers. The book goes through the computation. Added both refs, dropped new NPS ref (because I don't think it's any more reliable than previous NPS ref), removed dubious tag. —hike395 (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Britannica says that Yellowstone has half of the world's hydrothermal features. I believe Britannica is considered a reliable source, right? I'll re-add it to the lede. —hike395 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Good work. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Generally, Britannica is trustworthy, but this time it may be wrong. Perhaps the article was written by a non-geologist? What exactly is a "geothermal feature"? Solfataras come and go, how can you count them for example? Lappspira (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There’s a lot more detail in Geothermal areas of Yellowstone. Maybe peruse the sources there? — Gorthian (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Britannica says "hydrothermal", not "geothermal". Presumably a hot water feature, such as a hot spring. Given that >50% of the geysers in the world are in Yellowstone, it's plausible that >50% of the hot springs in the world are also there. —hike395 (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * may have missed the quote in the Britannica article: "Yellowstone’s principal attractions, however, are its some 10,000 hydrothermal features, which constitute roughly half of all those known in the world.". I added this to the quote field of the reference. —hike395 (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting discussion! It's not clear to me that there's a substantive difference between hydrothermal features and geothermal features in this context. Precipitation is sufficient in Yellowstone for all of the observable geothermal features to also be hydrothermal: the fumaroles, geysers, hot springs, and mud pots all involve water in some form. On a side note, Britannica is generally quite reliable, but secondary sources are preferable. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  04:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Rivertorch, I'm also really wondering what they mean in Britannica by "hydrothermal feature", how it is was estimated and which source Britannica is using. Lappspira (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On the difference between hydrothermal and geothermal: Hydrothermal requires the presence of hot water, which may be associated with a nearby magma source, but it could also be related to pressure and/or depth effects without magma, e.g. tilted sedimentary strata that allow water to migrate to great depth and to be heated as a result of the general worldwide geothermal gradient of increasing temperaure with depth. Geothermal includes e.g. dry rock heated by magma. Some geologists classify hydrothermal as a subset of geothermal, other geologists give them equal status. GeoWriter (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as any particular area is concerned, e.g. Yellowstone, I think hydrothermal v geothermal depends to some extent on how and where the observer defines the boundaries of "the system". Some definitions of Yellowstone may make it seem like a hydrothermal system, some definitons may make it seem like a geothermal system, but someone would have to know details of the observer's methodology to know for sure. My knowledge of Yellowstone is not sufficiently detailed at the moment to be able to say one way or the other. GeoWriter (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: the source of the 10,000 number --- One possible source for the 10,000 number is the Montana State University Yellowstone thermal imaging database This source was quoted as having 10,000 "thermal" features by the USGS and Yellowstone Center for Resources mapping publication. I can add a ref to the USGS publication to the article. —hike395 (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, GeoWriter and Hike395. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  13:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"Yellowstone Nationa Park" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Yellowstone Nationa Park. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 17 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC  678  20:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 續編: plan A:induce the lava with a tube made by china, through an energy transformer, spreading on the ground B. induce the lava through a tunnel, via the energy transformer, into the sea.(Need my paint?)2001:B011:A400:260B:481C:DF4:C6BE:F492 (talk)李肖先H.H.Li, October 3,2020. —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Deaths in Yellowstone
Didn't there used to be an article listing all the deaths in Yellowstone? What happened to it? Should this page have a subsection about it? 73.62.184.213 (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm if they werent sourced/cited properly or from a reliable source maybe they got removed? If you really liked it and could find the proper sourcing you could add it back in.Eruditess (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

In the History section, native Americans are referred to as Indians. Indians are people from the Indian sub-continent, not people indigenous to North America! This really sounds ridiculous in 2020. Melba1 (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)