Talk:Rock Creek Park, Colorado

The may site

Novel compound, Thank you for your work on Wikipedia, but I have to dispute your contention that the section headed "Ecomony and Tourism" is factual. It may well be in fact, a major component of the local economy, but the existence of an ad on the internet for it does nothing to prove that. I am going to revert it again. You need to find a newspaper article or something to that effect backing up what you have written. See WP:V. "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable." Gtwfan52 (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Gtwfan,

• It is incorrect to describe an enterprise's presence on the web as an "ad." It's not unusual for these sites to allow the public to make reservations, check order status, or obtain in-depth information. Can a mere "ad" do those things?
• The enterprises described in the article are not just a major component of the local economy; they are the only component of the local economy. (Rock Creek Park is a tiny community with no other businesses.) And they are the most notable thing about the community. Other information in the article, such as Rock Creek Park's latitude and longitude, is much less notable.
• If these enterprises did not draw any visitors, they would soon go out of business, and their web presence would disappear. Thus, the reference I provided verifies what I wrote (namely, that "visitors are drawn to Rock Creek Park by...").
• Take a look at these Wikipedia pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitou_Springs,_Colorado#Attractions_and_community_events Is this "promotional material" or "vandalism"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branson,_MO#Other_attractions Is this "promotional material" or "vandalism"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershey,_PA#Points_of_interest Is this "promotional material" or "vandalism"?

Why haven't you deleted all of that information? Why do you feel that only the Rock Creek Park article must not display this type of information? Novel compound (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You are obviously not understanding the concept of verifiability. I disagree that a company's website is not an ad. Do they do it to increase business? Is it reviewed by an uninterested outside party? (Which, by the way is what I am doing here.) No, it is their claims on their own business. Because you apparently live in or near this town, you know things and are using that knowledge to verify the website's claims. The rest of the world cannot do that. This isn't personal. You are simply not doing things the way they need to be done. It is GREAT that you want to do them, but you have to do them according to the policies, one of which I referred to above. I might suggest that you do a web search on the name of the museums and see if you can find any newspaper articles reviewing it. You may try looking for state or federal employment statistics that would show the importance of this business to the town. But no matter how much you want it to, a company's own website cannot be used as the only source to back up claims about a company. If you want to edit out any references to it other than its existence, I will not remove it again. Trying to meet you in the middle here. My only goal is to improve Wikipedia, and including unverified information in articles doesn't do that. I patrol changes and that is how I came on this article. I applaud you for wanting it to have more detail. You just got to do it right. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I looked at the articles you mentioned. I tagged Hershey as needing references (which is what I would have done on Rock Creek Park if I hadn't found your change right after you made it.). Manitou Springs and Branson were both referenced to the town's tourism authority, which is not the same as referencing the attractions' own websites. Also, there were no qualitative claims made on those pages about the various attractions, as you did at Rock Creek Park. Again, this isn't personal. I have no knowledge of Rock Creek Park. This is about the proper way to add information to Wikipedia. Please fix your edit and we can go our own ways. If it were me, I would try to find references to show the claims you have made here in talk and rewrite it that way with the proper references. That would make for a much more informative article. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I looked a bit for you. This site has some independant information: http://clui.org/ludb/site/john-may-museum-center. It is also licensed so that you could copy the picture on it to this page if you wanted. Just realize that you STILL can't say "Tourists are drawn here...". You would need some sort of citation to an independent survey on tourism to say that. BTW, I added an infobox to make the article look better. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the photograph. Not sure why you removed mention of the campground, because its existence is verified in the photo you added. So I am going to add the campground again.

Now, common sense tells us that a campground (and very likely a museum as well) cannot remain in existence, unless visitors are drawn to it. Thus, by verifying the existence of these attractions, we have also verified that visitors are drawn to them. Wikipedia is not a place to throw common sense out the window. Novel compound (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the campground because it is not an attraction, per se. Think of how boring and unwieldy this encyclopedia would be if policy allowed mention of every campground, grocery store, motel, etc. Look at other Wikipedia pages for towns or other settlements. Do you see any that list for-profit campgrounds? You may find mention of the existence of say 3 campgrounds in a town or 1 motel, but they will not be named. You really need to read the policy I quoted you several messages up. Your "existence=people come to them" argument may be true, but it is not within policy. That would fall under the heading of WP:OR, which is the policy on original research. You can only report on what you can verify, you are not allowed to draw inferences from it, which is what you are doing. Wikipedia has a structure, and articles on it must fall within the boundaries set. Instead of wasting my time and yours arguing for things that are out of policy, why don't you look for ways to improve this page within the scope of the policies? Quit trying to stick a square peg into a round hole. Between arguing with you, living my life, and doing the other things I do on here, I found time to improve this article. Why don't you try the same? If you really need me to, I will find someone else to explain the things I have been trying to get you to understand. BTW, what are you quoting above? Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I was not quoting, but rather paraphrasing, WP:COMMON... "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule." Novel compound (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Zip codes

I like your caption much better than mine. Thank you. Could you please fill the Zip code field in on the infobx? If it is for a post office not named Rock Creek Park, please put the name of the post office in parenthesis after the zip code. Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a tip. You can use this web site to determine zip codes (for the entire U.S., not just Colorado): http://www.zipmaps.net/Colorado/El_Paso_County.htm Novel compound (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but since Rock Creek Park does not show on that map, how does that help? Almost all you have done on this article has assumed local knowledge. Wikipedia articles are to be written with a world view. Example: You redacted the info on what highway it was on and replaced it with "south of Cheyenne Mountain State Park". If someone from out of your area were to be looking for RCP, do you think they would have a better chance finding it with the definite location of "on Highway 115 in El Paso County" or with the general location of "south of Cheyenne Mountain State Park in El Paso County"? There is a lot of territory south of the state park, ya know. I will be editing the lead to reflect both. I will save that zipcode link tho. It may be of assistance with other projects. Thanks. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I should have explained the process better.

• First, locate Rock Creek Park on a "normal" map, such as this one: http://binged.it/JZ1Ueq
• Then, find the same location on http://zipmaps.net to determine its zip code.

This process may be a bit tedious, but requires no local knowledge.

If one does not apply common sense, one could argue that "south of Cheyenne Mountain State Park" is not a specific description, because the vast territory of Antarctica lies south of Cheyenne Mountain State Park. But if you apply a reasonable interpretation, it is actually much more specific than "on Colorado State Highway 115." To wit: if "on Colorado State Highway 115" is defined as being within two miles of highway 115, there are a whopping 188 square miles of land "on highway 115." Novel compound (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I am required to "assume good faith", but it is getting much harder every time I come to this page. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? And to what end would anyone edit this obscure little article in bad faith? Novel compound (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)