Talk:Algonquin Provincial Park
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
 |
It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Ontario may be able to help! |
Sounds too much like it was written by the park, stating the rules and such.
- I think the summer camps section should be expanded and the articles on Camp Northway and Camp Pathfinder should be merged into it.
Grand Slam 7 15:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- I am against a merge - once the Algonquin article is as full as it should be, it will be too long with the camps within it. The camps are within the park but are not an important or integral component.Mark Nesbitt 21:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Given the photos and info, I think a seperate Camps of Algonquin Provincial Park is needed, but not individual articles. Padraic 13:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody seems to be for a merge, I'll remove the template.--Grand Slam 7 13:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Links
I don't know how to write them in, but there seem to be a lot of articles about things in the park which aren't mentioned here: Achray, Ontario, Brent crater, Brent, Ontario etc. Maybe a category is needed? --Padraic 16:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree something is needed to incorporate these links and many others such as links to the resorts which once existed in the part. perhaps even a category on the resorts themselves I think. It would be great if the links you mentioned could be incorported into the other information. Maybe also consider adding all the links to other locations in the park to the See Also section. Magnetawan (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion of scale
Some people may not realize just how large the park is. It is three times as large as the country of Luxembourg in Europe. Is this worth a mention in the article? It may have more impact than a numerical value of square kilometers.131.104.115.99 15:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Algonquin Stamp 1993.jpg
Image:Algonquin Stamp 1993.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:April in Algonquin Park.jpg
Image:April in Algonquin Park.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Maps
I found a map on the government website; I'm not sure if it qualifies as fair use as a government publication, but if someone wants to check it out it might be okay to use. Mr. Absurd (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I added the tag in the hopes that someone could find or create a free map, not just a fair use one. Thanks for looking though. --Padraic 16:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Tone of the Article
Someone posted above that they didn't like the tone of the article and there is a box on the top of the article about how it is written. i don't see anything wrong with talking about the rules and such. it is importand information for potential park visitors so that they know what to expect and are prepared Magnetawan (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I personally don't see anything terribly wrong with the tone; if the person who tagged the article could explain why they tagged it, maybe we'll have some place to start. Like most WP articles, it could use some tweaking, such as using proper list techniques to list the plants, animals, etc, but unless there is explanation as to why there is an issue with the tone and style I think it would be okay to remove the tag.BC (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree and think it should be taken down unless someone gives an arguement about what specifically is wrong with it and what needs to be fixed --Magnetawan (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
