Talk:Assateague Island

Page move

I'd like to move this to a more simple Assateague. Or perhaps Assateague Island (to make it clear what type of destination to expect when linking). As of right now, the article covers only the "National Seashore," but a good chunk of the island (including probably the best place for a swim on a quick day-trip) is an administratively separate state park. We could have an article for each, but I would think that unnecessary. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 19:12, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

I've always been a fan of having separate National Park articles since many people plan vacations with parks as their destination, with the obvious exception being parks like Independence Hall where the park in question is just a single attraction. In the case of Assateague, if the park is just a beach, or if there is a lot of ambiguity between the park and the island, then having separate articles may not make sense, but if the park is large it might be clearer to do separate articles for the town(s) and park. An additional note - Redwood National Park might be a similar case, in that it is a national park with a couple of state parks managed under the same unit, and the single "national park" article is about all of them. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:03, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

The Redwood National Park model would work fine, so I guess it's just a question of how to name this article. There is no town—just an uninhabited island [1] managed into three chunks by an alphabet soup of the MD DNR, NPS, and US F&WS. (The Virginia fish & wildlife reserve section is better covered in the Chincoteague article.) Do you think it best to keep the same official NPS name for the article, and just declare at the top that it will cover the state park as well? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 21:46, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

Maybe Grand Canyon is a better example - that article is mostly about the national park, but because it also includes info on the neighboring Indian reservations it is named "Grand Canyon" rather than "Grand Canyon National Park", and the latter is a redirect to the former. In this case you could move the article to "Assateague Island", and the article can then be primarily about the national seashore with additional info on the other parks. Would that work? I'm unfortunately not at all familiar with this particular park, so apologies for jumping into a discussion on a topic I'm only 50% familiar with. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:17, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

Bredcrumb trail

About this revert: I'll agree that extra-hierarchical regions aren't normally part of hierarchy. However: I thought that when an place straddled the border of two normal regions, but was completely within an extra-hierarchical region, then it could be listed under the EHR in the bredcrumb trail. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)