Talk:Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks
Split this up[edit]
Does anyone have an argument against splitting this into two articles? The park service manages these two parks as one unit, but from a travel standpoint there is more than enough to say about each of them to merit having two separate articles. -- (WT-en) Ryan 01:09, 5 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- They are hardly ever mentioned separately. The division is pretty irrelevant to the visitor: You'll see sequoias in both parks, both have an extensive backcountry of high sierras. Yes, there's plenty to be written about these parks, but an awful lot of it will be pretty much the same for both parks. 208.25.54.164 05:44, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)
"The plague"? Seriously?
Link to crystal cave tours.[edit]
Is it ok to include this official link to the details on the Crystal Cave tours http://www.sequoiahistory.org/default.asp?contentid=632 —The preceding comment was added by Pbhavesh (talk • contribs)
- That looks like an official link, so yes, I think it's OK to make one entry for it, including the URL, under "Do." Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Divide into separate articles?[edit]
This has been brought up before, but the article has surely been expanded since 2005 and King's Canyon/Sequoia are two separate national parks — two different, although closely related, travel destinations. What are the thoughts about splitting this up? Selfie City (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- It looks to me that this would entail splitting up the See and Do listings, and copying all of the other sections into both new articles since the content seems to apply to both parks. I don't think that's really useful for travellers since these parks are beside each other. If travellers treat these as one destination, I don't see the advantage of having two articles. Maybe you just put sub-headings for each park under See and Do. Would that work? Ground Zero (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I guess so, it's just that I was looking at the map and I think these parks each have separate park entrances. So it seemed that the normal thing to do would be to make them separate. But yes, I'll add in the subheadings. Selfie City (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Dividing the sections gets much more difficult in the "Do" section. The listings there don't even state which park they're in — needs a park expert to divide into sections, unless I do some research. Selfie City (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe makes sense to keep them in one article if they are next to each other and in practice regarded as one single park. --ϒpsilon (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, although I've never really thought of them as one parks. They have different attractions — one is for the forests and the other for the canyon, so they have slightly different pros/cons. Selfie City (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe makes sense to keep them in one article if they are next to each other and in practice regarded as one single park. --ϒpsilon (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Dividing the sections gets much more difficult in the "Do" section. The listings there don't even state which park they're in — needs a park expert to divide into sections, unless I do some research. Selfie City (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- I guess so, it's just that I was looking at the map and I think these parks each have separate park entrances. So it seemed that the normal thing to do would be to make them separate. But yes, I'll add in the subheadings. Selfie City (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)