Talk:L. L. "Stub" Stewart State Park/Archive 1

Editing

Thanks to everyone for editing and adding, especially for finally using citations. Let's stop adding info on the opening until it finally opens as this is not a bulletin board that should be edited daily. The only reason the current info on opening is there is to demonstrate the time delay on opening in a NPOV manner. Then when it does open on ##/##/2007 it will further show this fact. Thanks. Aboutmovies 19:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, I'm on the committee for the dedication ceremony, which is indeed going to happen July 7th.

Then when it does we can simply put: On July 7 2007, the park was dedicated and officially opened. With an actual citation to the info. Aboutmovies 19:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The dedication doesn't necessarily equate to the actual opening. I'm not sure what the problem is with putting a firm dedication date in here.

The problem is, well, exactly what just happened!!!! You say: is indeed going to happen July 7th and now a few days later now you put it in the article as July 8. So, um certainty seems to be an issue, which has been an issue with the park. You may want to read WP:WWIN, pay close attention to the part about a crystal ball. You see Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a discussion board or press release center. Also, as you are on the committee, read about conflicts of interest, as events being promoted such as this are one of the reasons why that policy exists. This article is not here for OSP to promote its parks, which you clearly have demonstrated a promotional flavor by re-adding the info on a future event as if it is some how encyclopedic and needed for the article. Think of it this way: will the article now have to be re-edited in order to make it accurate. Yes, after July 8 or what ever day it eventaully occurs on it will have to be changed. Again, encyclopedia, not social calendar. Aboutmovies 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Read what I said. Dedication is not equal to opening. The dedication is still July 7. I removed inaccurate information and replaced it with official information. If you want to delete the future stuff so be it, but you shouldn't complain about updating inaccurate info with correct info. None of my edits have been promotional in any way (I do not work for OSP, and have no financial interest in the opening), only edits to correct information. Bcostley 23:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of civility I removed the opening information as while the event qualifies on the almost certain aspect of the crystal ball part, the notability may be in doubt. Some of the feature section may fail the crystal ball test. I don't have a strong opinion either way on whether the project # of campsites and other stuff should be removed. In the future I suggest that you be more consistant in throwing around wiki policy, earlier you by fiat ruled a line in the sand allowing some speculative future info, and then when it was corrected with official info, pitched a fit. Just deleting all the future speculative info would have been a better choice.Bcostley 03:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In none of the sources used to create this article did it mention a changing number of campsites. They all seemed consistent in the numbers, otherwise I would not have used the info. The opening on the other hand has changed (which was what provided some sources for the article), thus does fail the crystal ball test as to a specific date. Saying it opens in 2007 is OK, but more specific becomes speculation, even if you use a press release that no one here can verify (it is dated tomorrow) to say it is opening on a specific date. As to "pitching a fit" that is because the changed info went into pre-existing sources, thus the sources did not back up the information, per WP:CITE. That was the problem, not that it was changed. Once changed with proper sources there was no longer a problem. So there has been no fiat, just editors refusing to follow Wikipedia guidelines as mentioned in the following edit summaries:

• rv unsourced changes and unexplained removal of cited and more detailed info
• if you want to change then also change the source

Follow the rules and there is no problem. Don't and there is. Aboutmovies 04:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read the article? It now says "Other items include 78 camping sites that include full utility hook-ups (43 sites will open in 2007, and another 35 in 2008)"
• The changed info did not go into pre-existing sources. I did cite a press release for tomorrow. My fault. I guess I'm calendar challenged and thought it was today. In any case I removed that part.
• fiat: "Let's stop adding info on the opening until it finally opens as this is not a bulletin board that should be edited daily." This is your error, you violate the policy yourself by identifing a line where the future info is OK, but it can no longer be changed. Why do you get to decide the cutoff for speculative data?
• "rv unsourced changes and unexplained removal of cited and more detailed info" I am not, nor ever was, 159.121.119.130
• "if you want to change then also change the source" I am not, nor ever was, 159.121.119.130
• "Follow the rules and there is no problem. Don't and there is." Back at you buddy.Bcostley 05:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, the items opening in 2008 should go. So we are clear, this discussion started with your unsourced addition to the History section, the other future info I didn't catch and should be relegated to a general expansion plan sentence without any specifics, due to the same issues. The other future items in that area were removed for the same reasons. I never said that info must be included, and it is not me who came up with the guidelines. I'm just enforcing them, as do many others. I know you are not the anon IP editor or the OSP employee that finally added the info, but you said "then when it was corrected with official info, pitched a fit" I assumed you were refering to the update campsite numbers that came from an official cited source due to your "project # of campsites" line precededing the sentence with the official statement. Thus you can see the confusion when you start talking about "official info" as that info from the OSP press release would be the only verifiable official info given. So yes, the other info should go too, and will be gone shortly. Aboutmovies 06:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - everything looks consistant to me now. Bcostley 15:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I see that the page move that was made was reverted as "controversial", but naming conventions used to dictate that there is a space between initial letters in names. Does this standard apply in this case? I don't think it's a big deal, but it would be nice if the standard was applied consistently and that the good faith move not be characterized as controversial. However, after looking for the reference on one of the naming conventions pages, it appears the rule has been changed or removed. Can anyone find it or know if it was changed? Katr67 18:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Round two: What naming convention led to the recent move? Note there are a half-dozen names, and even the state cannot be consitent. Sometimes they call it Stub Stewart State Park, sometimes L.L. Stub Stewart State Park, and sometimes L.L. "Stub" Stewart State Park, plus the independent RS used said L.L. "Stub" Stewart Memorial State Park. So what naming convention led to L. L. "Stub" Stewart State Park? Aboutmovies (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The sign at the entrance says L. L. "Stub" Stewart State Park as do the printed brochures. The sign would probably be the most permanent reference. Maybe we could just go back to Hares Canyon State Park (or was that Hare's Canyon) :) Bcostley (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)