Talk:Silver Springs State Park

	Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rhesus monkeys swimming

This article claims that rhesus monkeys are good swimmers, whereas the Rhesus Monkey article claims that they are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.186.101 (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed one of the people I know who work at the park, asking which is the correct version. I suspect that the Rhesus monkey page has the correct version. My modifications to this page did not deal with the monkeys. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I received an e-mail reply from Scott Mitchell, Director of the Environmental Center and Museum in Silver River State Park. He stated that the story of "Col Tooey" is the correct story. I edited the article, took out the bit about them being excellent swimmers and linked to the Rhesus Monkey and Tarzan in film and other print media pages. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silver River State Park → Silver Springs State Park – As of October 1, 2013, the Silver River State Park was re-named to "Silver Springs State Park", due to the acquisition of Silver Springs Nature Theme Park. As such, shouldn't this page be moved to "Silver Springs State Park", and contain all information from the "nature theme park" from here on out as it's on official state park property? I'm also suggesting on the Silver Spring park's page that it is moved to a more suitable name such as "Silver Springs (attraction)" or something, so it can refer to the Springs before it was a state park from the 1800s-2013.

Note:This and this prove the rename of the park after the merge of the two facilities. 98.180.118.6 (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed title redirects to Silver Springs State Fish and Wildlife Area, an unrelated park in Illinois. --BDD (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be moved to Silver Springs State Park (Florida) instead then, and have the redirect act as a disambiguation page; Or do I have to put another move request? 98.180.118.6 (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. No valid rationale for the move. See below. Andrewa (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (change of vote). Thanks Cúchullain for your research and your policy-based argument (but see below). Andrewa (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  @Andrewa: - do you favour the move to the primary topic, Silver Springs State Park, or to Silver Springs State Park (Florida)? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be Silver Springs State Park. First, the Illinois park isn't actually named that, while this one is. Second, if you look at my findings, there are more results for the "Silver Springs State Park"+Florida than ...+Illinois; it already passes the primary topic threshold for a WP:TWODABS arrangement (this park was commonly called "Silver Springs State Park" even before the official name change). Hat notes will be the better way to get readers where they're going than redirecting them to an article with a different name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be to Silver Springs State Park, with a hatnote as described by Cuchullain. Thanks for asking, I was assuming an unqualified vote would be interpreted as supporting the original proposal, but it never hurts to make it explicit IMO. Andrewa (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is definitely the park's new name,[1] and it's now being used in the media.[2] In fact, it was pretty common even before the official change; "Silver Springs State Park"+Florida returns 358 Google Books hits (presumably few if any books on the topic have been printed since October 1) compared to 326 for "Silver River State Park". This trend is likely to continue as more sources appear. There shouldn't be a problem usurping the redirect from the Illinois park; that park's not actually named "Silver Springs State Park", and there are fewer sources even now (242 Google Books hits for "Silver Springs State Park" Illinois vs. 358 for Florida). Again, this is a trend that will continue as more and more sources appear.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

From the rationale above: shouldn't this page be moved to "Silver Springs State Park", and contain all information from the "nature theme park" from here on out as it's on official state park property?

In a word, no. It shouldn't, or at least not for those reasons. Please read WP:AT (noting that the box above reads in part Remember to base arguments on article title policy - this is the policy) and also I suggest WP:official names, which is an essay designed to clarify what the policy says. And it's not what you think it says. Andrewa (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Cúchullain for your argument based on common usage. But did you need to bring in the speculation about a trend that will continue...? I don't think it's necessary for the argument, but if it is, then I'd have to say that your argument would fail on grounds of WP:BALL. Andrewa (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out that this development isn't just a flash in the pan. The trend is already plain to see in the currently available sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. My personal view is that the argument would be far easier for other participants, and the closing admin in particular, to understand without this detail. I'm also concerned that others may be encouraged to rely on such arguments, not realising that policy does not support them, if they see them used by experienced hands. Andrewa (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.