Talk:Kejimkujik National Park
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The national historic sites component of Parks Canada is responsible for Canada's program of historical commemoration, which recognizes nationally significant places, persons and events. All such designations are made by the Minister of the Environment on the advice of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada
Kejimkujik is accessible off Route 8, the Kejimkujik Drive, by travelling approximately 160 km from Halifax via Highway 103, 190 km from Yarmouth via Highway 101, or 90 km from Digby via Highway 101. The Seaside Adjunct is accessible from Highway 103, about 100 km south of the inland portion of the Park and 25 km southwest of Liverpool.
[edit] The Tent Dwellers
Added in a section about The Tent Dwellers, and a separate page on the same. Anyone who's been to Keji should pick up a copy, it's a great read and will remind you of the good times in the park... Burtonpe 19:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wondering if this section is appropriate for a wiki entry? --Spankr 15:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I added it because it's a notable historical account of the area that became the park, describing the geography of the park, the uses of the land, and camping techniques at the time. Maybe shorten it if you want, but i think the section deserves to stay (I wrote it, so it would be odd if I thought anything else!) Burtonpe 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Wouldn't it be more in keeping with the structure for the book to have its own wiki page and have a link to the park page and the park page have a link to it? --Spankr 14:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Merge Kejimikujik Lake to Kejimkujik National Park
Unless the Kejimikujik Lake article can be (meaningfully) expanded past the stub stage, it really should be merged into Kejimkujik National Park Kathy A. 01:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
-
Agree.--Spankr 01:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)- Oppose. One is a natural feature, the other an administrative structure. --Qyd 03:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good point! --Spankr 23:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. It would be quite messy to attempt to incorporate the lake's history as a subset of the park's Wikipedia entry because the lake's history vastly predates the park. I think it would be quite confusing from a chronology perspective. Additionally I think Qyd's point is very valid as well. -- Canoehead 22:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)