Talk:Starved Rock
Photos
[edit]Photos and/or photo uploads are needed.
- HABS or HAER photos may be available for this site. Search HABS/HAER here
- The three photos accompanying NRHP document (linked in article) may be taken by an NPS employee and/or otherwise NPS owned, hence public domain. If so, they could be used: Search NPS focus here, please select the highest resolution JPG versions
- New photos would be helpful.
Merge?
[edit]Anyone else think it would be helpful to merge this with Starved Rock State Park. It seems like an unhelpful splitting of the information just for the sake of having a separate page for the NHL. A merger would improve the article and make it simpler for readers to locate the information. I propose a merger. Thoughts?--IvoShandor (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- A merge in the opposite direction may also work. It seems to me that most anyone searching for information about Starved Rock is looking foremost for info about the park surrounding the rock, since it is the entity which controls access to Starved Rock. Either way we go, I think a merger would be most helpful unless anyone has any pertinent reason to keep it the way it is.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I started the separate Starved Rock article as part of a campaign to create articles for U.S. National Historic Landmarks. It seems to me that there is sufficient information for two articles, with some overlap, and that keeping them separate is appropriate. Readers interested in parks will find the park easily enough; readers interested in NHLs can find the NHL info. I don't see how one merged article necessarily serves readers better; it can also just bring in extraneous stuff into the article that does not help readers interested in one or the other main aspect. I think only the rock, not the entire much larger park, is National Register-listed and further designated a NHL. It is helpful in a certain way to have the NHL one separate so that the NHL category can be applied to it. I do think both articles could be developed more, with the Starved Rock being covered in the park article in a section which uses a "main" link to the NHL article. I don't feel too strongly about this, though, so if another editor has sources and wants to really develop the separate articles or a combined article, I don't mind terribly either way. doncram (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Always so long-winded you are don. :-) OK, yeah, I don't really feel too strongly about this either way myself, which is why I thought input would help. I was honestly just thinking ahead, because I really think there will be a lot of overlap. The NHL cat could be applied to the park article too, you're right though that the entire park isn't NRHP listed, just the rock and a number of archaeological sites. I believe the park's lodge and cabins also have a Register listing, but I could be mistaken about that. I suppose my point is, that I have no point, I was just wondering what people thought.--IvoShandor (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would prefer to keep them separate, so I oppose the merge. There is enough distinction between the two and too much information that doesn't overlap. Royalbroil 13:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Always so long-winded you are don. :-) OK, yeah, I don't really feel too strongly about this either way myself, which is why I thought input would help. I was honestly just thinking ahead, because I really think there will be a lot of overlap. The NHL cat could be applied to the park article too, you're right though that the entire park isn't NRHP listed, just the rock and a number of archaeological sites. I believe the park's lodge and cabins also have a Register listing, but I could be mistaken about that. I suppose my point is, that I have no point, I was just wondering what people thought.--IvoShandor (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I started the separate Starved Rock article as part of a campaign to create articles for U.S. National Historic Landmarks. It seems to me that there is sufficient information for two articles, with some overlap, and that keeping them separate is appropriate. Readers interested in parks will find the park easily enough; readers interested in NHLs can find the NHL info. I don't see how one merged article necessarily serves readers better; it can also just bring in extraneous stuff into the article that does not help readers interested in one or the other main aspect. I think only the rock, not the entire much larger park, is National Register-listed and further designated a NHL. It is helpful in a certain way to have the NHL one separate so that the NHL category can be applied to it. I do think both articles could be developed more, with the Starved Rock being covered in the park article in a section which uses a "main" link to the NHL article. I don't feel too strongly about this, though, so if another editor has sources and wants to really develop the separate articles or a combined article, I don't mind terribly either way. doncram (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be good either way. I really don't think there is much info, so they would be ok if they were merged together, not too long etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.186.229 (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
'Support. I think Starved Rock should be merged into Starved Rock State Park. The rock can be described in its own section in the park's article. Yes, I would think that those looking for Starved Rock are thinking about the greater park area. There isn't enough information in either article to really warrant a split yet. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Support and merging. I expanded the state park article a bit, and now there is nothing in this article that doesn't duplicate information. If there ever is enough information to split the rock itself into its own article, it can be done again in the future. Teemu08 (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)