Talk:National parks
Latest comment: 1 year ago by WhatamIdoing in topic U.S. state parks and Canadian provincial parks
 |
There is a project to improve articles about National parks – see the National Parks Expedition page. |
Duplication
[edit]I think an article like this one may make sense to help tie together some of our "National park" index articles, but I'd strongly suggest avoiding duplication, otherwise this will become a very unwieldy list. To cite one example that jumped out at me, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks are already listed under United States National Parks. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose that leaves the question of what to do with provincial parks? Anticosti, for instance, is mostly provincial parkland. Adirondack Park belong to NYS, not the federal government, likewise Algonquin Provincial Park belongs to Ontario. K7L (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Banner
[edit]The current doesn't really give me any feel of a national park. How about this one? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
- I'd say #1. Maybe the cropper of #0, Mx. Granger, was thinking about giving the banner a more "travelling" feel, by including that stretch of road. Vidimian (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd prefer #1 too. The dog2 (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Maybe the old one can be used for WV:NPE, since the current is very US-centric. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
U.S. state parks and Canadian provincial parks
[edit]- Swept in from the pub
Just putting it out there as to whether we should endeavor to create these articles to complement the articles on their respective national parks. Some of these are really beautiful too. But given the sheer number of U.S. state parks, we can't possibly cover all of them on WV, let alone in a single article. The dog2 (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- We do have such articles, FWIW – see Tombstone Territorial Park or Letchworth State Park. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think we should have articles on any large (non-urban) parks where the facilities justify it. I don't think it matters whether the park is run by national, state county or city government (or a charity or private estate). AlasdairW (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly. If they merit articles, create articles. If they don't, don't. I created an article for a county park in Santa Barbara once. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. Pashley (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think we should have articles on any large (non-urban) parks where the facilities justify it. I don't think it matters whether the park is run by national, state county or city government (or a charity or private estate). AlasdairW (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- A complication is that the Quebec government calls its parks "national parks", e,g Gaspésie National Park. Pashley (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- That problem isn't unique to Quebec, though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- The ones I've been to in Illinois aren't huge. They're mostly just nature reserves with a couple of hiking trails, though Starved Rock State Park has a lodge within the park that you can stay. I guess a generic article about state parks in the U.S. wouldn't be of much use, but I wonder if the state parks would warrant a section in the U.S. national parks system articles. The dog2 (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, they're different systems. However, if you think individual Illinois state parks don't merit their own articles but a catchall article on Illinois state parks with brief descriptions and location information could be useful, by all means start that article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think what The dog2 is suggesting is something along the lines of national parks in Australia (note: they're essentially state parks in all but name) but for the US and Canada. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, tho. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- If the information we have on a park can fit into a paragraph in the article for the nearest town, a provincial or state park or small national park should be left there. If you have more information that we want to add, then it should be forked into its own article. I don't think we need to complicate it further than that. Ground Zero (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, what SHB2000 said is what I was thinking of. I guess Canadian provincial parks would be a possible article, but U.S. state parks would be very unwieldy I imagine. Australia has only 6 states and 2 territories. The U.S. has 50 states and D.C., and each of the states runs its own state park system. The dog2 (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- At least in Canada, I think it might be better to completely ignore the National/Provincial categorization. To the traveller, knowing the operator of the the park is secondary to knowing where it is and what it has to offer. I would bet even most Canadians don't accurately know which parks are federal, and which are provincial. Perhaps we can reconfigure the Canadian national parks article to cover any and every Canadian park article, with an eye to eventually breaking it up by Region or Province once it gets too big. (For the record, we're at 98 parks in Canada currently... but that includes Canada's Wonderland, and we're missing some iconic provincial parks that are worthy of an article once I find the time). Gregsmi11 (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I doubt any national parks in the Yukon are better known than Tombstone Territorial Park (also currently the otbp of July 2023). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- At least in Canada, I think it might be better to completely ignore the National/Provincial categorization. To the traveller, knowing the operator of the the park is secondary to knowing where it is and what it has to offer. I would bet even most Canadians don't accurately know which parks are federal, and which are provincial. Perhaps we can reconfigure the Canadian national parks article to cover any and every Canadian park article, with an eye to eventually breaking it up by Region or Province once it gets too big. (For the record, we're at 98 parks in Canada currently... but that includes Canada's Wonderland, and we're missing some iconic provincial parks that are worthy of an article once I find the time). Gregsmi11 (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, what SHB2000 said is what I was thinking of. I guess Canadian provincial parks would be a possible article, but U.S. state parks would be very unwieldy I imagine. Australia has only 6 states and 2 territories. The U.S. has 50 states and D.C., and each of the states runs its own state park system. The dog2 (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- If the information we have on a park can fit into a paragraph in the article for the nearest town, a provincial or state park or small national park should be left there. If you have more information that we want to add, then it should be forked into its own article. I don't think we need to complicate it further than that. Ground Zero (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think what The dog2 is suggesting is something along the lines of national parks in Australia (note: they're essentially state parks in all but name) but for the US and Canada. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, tho. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, they're different systems. However, if you think individual Illinois state parks don't merit their own articles but a catchall article on Illinois state parks with brief descriptions and location information could be useful, by all means start that article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- The ones I've been to in Illinois aren't huge. They're mostly just nature reserves with a couple of hiking trails, though Starved Rock State Park has a lodge within the park that you can stay. I guess a generic article about state parks in the U.S. wouldn't be of much use, but I wonder if the state parks would warrant a section in the U.S. national parks system articles. The dog2 (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- That problem isn't unique to Quebec, though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Except that in Canada, there's this thing is called a Parks Canada pass. And you can only use it for national parks, not provincial parks. Likewise, the U.S. has an annual parks for national parks that you can't use for state parks. That's a travel-relevant distinction. The dog2 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- We have an article on California state parks. I've worked on it a bit, but there's much more to be done. Depending on how you count, there are either 285 state parks, or there are 149 (139 parks + 10 state wildlife areas). WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- True, the pass is travel related, but I don't think it should determine how a traveller makes plans. The pass also doesn't include camping, so it won't be much of a factor for overnight trips (part of the logic behind article creation). For example, someone flying into Thunder Bay might choose between Quetico Provincial Park and Pukaskwa National Park; there are many good reasons to visit either. I think a good guide would organize itself to present both equally enough to make an informed decision, regardless of which one is "national". Gregsmi11 (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- When I buy a parks pass (or anything similar, like a museum membership), I often make plans based on how to get the most value for that purchase. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)