Talk:Teide National Park

Spain Mid‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Volcanoes Low‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa: Spanish Africa Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Spanish Africa work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Protected areas High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

World Heritage Sites

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Dubious

Despite the presence of two references, the claim that Teide National Park is the most visited in Europe and second most visited in the World, doesn't stand up to examination. On the world scale, Great Smoky Mountains National Park received over 9.4 million visitors in 2009, Grand Canyon National Park received over 4.3 million visitors in 2010, Yellowstone National Park received over 3.6 million visitors in 2010; and that is just in the United States. In the UK the Peak District received 22 million visitors in 2006, the Lake District says "...with about 12 million visitors each year". I'm sure other examples can be found.

Unless Teide National Park has experienced a huge growth in visitor numbers in the last year, or other parks have experienced an equally massive collapse in visitor numbers, I cannot see how Teide's claim to be the most visited in Europe and second most visited in the World, can be true. Astronaut (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Teide in 2010 became the most visited national park in Europe and the second in the world.--83.41.95.199 (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the link here for the National Park Services' visitation figures. Teide does not come close to being the second most visited national park in the word.

https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/National%20Reports/Annual%20Park%20Ranking%20Report%20(1979%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year)

Moreover, it's not even the most visited national park in Europe, as several in the UK have more visitors annually. This needs to be corrected.

http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/learningabout/whatisanationalpark/factsandfigures — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.52.130 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced, further googling suggest 2.8million makes it the most visited in Spain, but only just. Apologies for reverting, I was a little quick off the mark SPACKlick (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.52.130 (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in 2010, not 2012 - 2013 - 2014.--81.45.52.209 (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's still not correct. If you read the link from the US National Parks Service post, you can search by year. In 2010, Teide National Park would not have been the second most visited IN THE UNITED STATES, much less in the world. You are wrong, and you are vandalizing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.3.118.137 (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What says the reference is that it was in 2010, not that it is today. Therefore it is correct: El parque nacional del Teide es el primero más visitado de Europa y el segundo del mundo, El Teide, el parque más visitado de Europa y el segundo del mundo, Los 10 Parques Nacionales más visitados del mundo, Parque Nacional del Teide. Enciclopedia Virtual de las Islas Canarias. Can you speak Spanish?.--81.36.222.113 (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is wrong. There are government statistics from the UK and US cited in the links above that clearly show that 2.8 million visitors would not be sufficient to make Teide National Park the second most visited park in the world, WHETHER IN 2010 OR NOT. Ability to read Spanish is not relevant here. You are making a claim that is easily disprovable.

2.8 million visitors it had in 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.222.113 (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2.8 million visitors it had in 2008, increase in 2010. Please read the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.222.113 (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references you provided do not have numbers. They make unsourced claims that the park is the second most visited in the world in 2010.

The link provided above from the National Park Service (US) shows that at least two national parks - Great Smoky Mountains NP (9.4 million) and Grand Canyon NP (4.3 million) had more visitors in 2010 than anything you have provided regarding Teide. Please stop posting unsourced and incorrect information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drytortugas19 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you explain this in your edit summary when you remove information, otherwise it looks like vandalism. Also, make sure you sign your comments on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your comment. —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Linkrot Tag

The sources in this article are all told pretty poor. I will be coming back to try to help fix them but I can't make it a priority. I do believe the link should be there as it will attract more editors to help in the project of fixing the references SPACKlick (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such rot! Who are these editors that will fix theses references? Why can't you do it? Are one of those people who love slapping a tag and moving along? Here's a polite suggesstion - instead of drive-by tagging, actually do something useful and fix the links yourself! Snappy (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted above, I'm, coming back this evening to have a look at fixing, but leaving a "this needs fixing" tag attracts editors who patrol for specific [Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup|tags]. I'm going to see what I can do this evening. In future don't remove templates which are accurate for the page. SPACKlick (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't hold my breadth for you or anyone else fixing it. I will continue to remove such templates as I see fit per WP:Drive-by tagging is discouraged. Snappy (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a chance to fix one yesterday and will likely get a couple more done over the weekend but may I bring your attention to several quotes from Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems

Some people object to the practice of tagging instead of fixing, but tags do have their place.
There is a lot of value in pointing out article's problems. Tagging allows editors to specialize, teaches them and warns readers about subpar content. It is better if people solve the problems they encounter themselves, but not everyone may be able to.
Criticism is a vital part in Wikipedia's making, and should be welcomed rather than discouraged.
They might not have the expertise to fix those problems, but the fact that they report them probably means that an article needs improvement.
Adding and removing tags for non-obvious problems without discussion is not helpful ... and is derided as "drive-by tagging" when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. Where there is disagreement, both sides should attempt to discuss the situation.
editors occasionally remove tags without solving real problems because they are embarrassed by the tag, do not want additional attention from other editors, or do not like tags.
Rather than reverting or edit warring over the placement of a tag, use dispute resolution procedures. Start by engaging in a calm discussion on the article's talk page.
Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time.

So I would suggest that when you see a tag, you feel has been left with a drive by, you consider the merits of the tag rather than simply remove it. Leaving a comment on the talk page first can allow for others to see if they feel the problem needs fixing, it's rarely urgent to remove a tag, particularly procedural tags outside the main article text like Linkrot. SPACKlick (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of improving the references and removing the tag. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]