Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas/archive 0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi G from B, the idea in general looks good to me. It is often very difficult to work out a template without actually applying it, so maybe some test pages would clarify a lot - you'll also get some new ideas, and people are more likely to comment on it.

As for the level 3 articles, I'm not sure they really deserve a separate article, you may want to include them on the country's page. On the other hand, a country like the US alone has a big bunch of state parks no managed by the NPS.

The "Protected areas in country X" articles could easily be linked in the WikiProject countries, f.e. in the geography section.

If a park with the same name exists in multiple countries, there is an easy solution. If the parks are really different, just disambiguate (the following is fictional):

  • Bryce Canyon National Park (Malta) (or maybe ", Malta") about the park in Malta
  • Bryce Canyon National Park (United States) about the park in the USA
  • Bryce Canyon National Park will be a disambiguation page.

In some cases, the parks will cross a border and will be really the same park, probably administered by both the countries' responsible services. In that case, there shouldn't be a problem in naming the page.

Jeronimo 05:57 Aug 7, 2002 (PDT)

Thanks for the advice, Jeronimo. I was planning on testing the template on a few areas to see how it works out and to adapt things if necessary (most probably it will be).
The level 3 articles are reserved for some countries only (probably the big ones). For example, Australia alone has more than 5000 protected areas and the great majority of them are managed on a state level. To group them all on one page would really not be a good idea. The USA would also be a serious candidate, but there are much more areas managed on a federal level. Furthermore, these areas cross state borders in a number of cases, so they're not good candidates to group on state pages. State parks, on the other hand, are.
Disambiguation is probably the best solution for areas with the same name. For international protected areas I included a link to such a page on the "Protected area" page (in the proposal).
GfB 06:46 Aug 7, 2002 (PDT)