Jump to content

Talk:James Weldon Johnson Park

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Hemming Park)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hemming Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion

[edit]

Request received to merge articles: Confederate Memorial (Jacksonville, Florida) into Hemming Park; dated: June 2020. Proposer's Rationale: I note that the article Confederate Memorial (Jacksonville, Florida) was created today (the day that the monument was removed from the park). I'm not sure of the utility of creating a new article for a monument that has been removed (and deservedly so, IMO, but that's another story). The park article here has the history of the monument. It's not a particularly well-written article, admittedly, and I struggle to even find an appropriate place to write about the removal, but I feel there should not be separate articles for monuments and statues in parks unless they are e.g., noteworthy in their own right during their existence. This monument achieved what noteworthiness it has -- had -- only through its removal from the park. It should likely just have its own section within this article. Discuss here. Jhw57 (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merger. YoPienso (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Edited June 11 to clarify that my initial Agree meant Support merger. YoPienso (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. I write about public art often and I've promoted dozens of outdoor sculpture articles to Good status. I'm almost certain there's enough coverage and content to justify a standalone article. With Description, History, and Reception articles, we could have a nice entry here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most of the monument article is WP:REDUNDANT to park article. While there is information about the memorial, it can still be – and already is – covered perfectly well in the main park article, as it should be because it was the centerpiece of the park! No need to remove park-related content from the park article, or to have a separate page duplicating information. Reywas92Talk 20:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed some of the redundancy, and also removed detail about Hemming the person. There's more detail to add to the monument page. I strongly oppose merging. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer:@Reywas92:@Jhw57: You moved a little to quickly there, Another Believer. The discussion was opened June 9. Three of us supported the merger and only you opposed. Now on June 11 you've done it on your own with no support. I suggest you revert your merger and wait for more discussion. (I'll clarify that my "agree" meant I agreed with Jhw57.) YoPienso (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yopienso, I'm sorry, I'm not sure I follow. You're asking me to revert my merger? All I've done is remove duplicate text from this page, and move over the inscription. What have I done wrong, exactly? I'm trying to expand the monument article... there's plenty more to add. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. (Duh!) My apologies. But you were continuing to further separate them while there's an open discussion to merge them. If they're merged, you've wasted your effort. YoPienso (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yopienso, Sure, but the goal is to demonstrate a merge is unnecessary. The monument is over a 100 years old, and I can pretty much guarantee there's sufficient secondary coverage to demonstrate independent notability. Also, the park article is long enough and doesn't even go into detail about the other memorials installed on site. I hope you'll consider changing your vote above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Imo, you're demonstrating they should be merged, because now we have two short articles that are very closely related. YoPienso (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, agree to disagree. I think the park page is long enough and both articles are currently underdeveloped. I'll bow out of this discussion and let other editors weigh in, but I'm certain the memorial is independently notable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Confederate Monument is notable in its own right. It is common practice to have stand-alone articles for monuments and statues. A separate article allows us to address the monument in depth without taking up a disproportionate amount of space here. Besides, all of the content relating to the monument was *plagiarized* from scv-kirby-smith.org in this edit. Also it is sad that this article doesn't mention the giant mouth at Duval and Hogan. gobonobo + c 12:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge: from the article, The memorial is the oldest in the city and was the tallest at the time. A good statement of significance. Such public art and geographic articles are usually suitable for standalone articles. I find it a little bit difficult to search for sources about the monument, but I had a lot of success with a search for "Hemming" and "Confederate" and a few other key words. Unfortunately all the articles are geo-blocked for me and some of the books inaccessible but do a quick search and you can see at a glance that there's a wealth of relevant resources. — Bilorv (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's pretty small now, but it's a good start to an article. If we can't expand on it, then we merge; but let's try first. Bowler the Carmine (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. If the statue wasn't coming down then I would propose to delete this article but since its coming down its effectively becoming separate from Hemming Park which then warrants a separate article itself. Also, because the statue is well over 100 years old and survived the 1901 fire it deserves to have its own article.--Excel23 (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Weldon_Johnson_Park&oldid=1203060001"