Talk:List of British Columbia Provincial Parks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] BC Parks Template
I have a template I use when expanding the stubs. You still have to do a bit of editing after using the template, but I find it saves quite a bit of time. I keep the editing page open, as well as the official BC Parks page for the park in question.
{{subst:BCParks_Boilerplate| parkName= {{subst:PAGENAME}}| createDate= | protectSpecies= | recActivities= | geoInfo= | locDist= |locDir= |locCity= | parkSize= | fileName= }}
You can find the actual code for the template at Template:BCParks Boilerplate.
[edit] Table of Contents
It tried a different style of TOC, the advantage is compact general TOC with alphabetic TOC for sections; disadvantage: the top table of contents is manual, not automatic. Revert if you think it looks bad. Qyd(talk)23:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- I was getting used to its look ... but discovered it doesn't work properly. Clicking on any of the alphabetic TOC links under any of the section below Provincial Park (i.e. Protected Area) will bring you "up" the page to the corresponding letter under Provincial Park. Not the desired result for the action. So am reverting to the previous style. --Dogbreathcanada 06:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Protected Areas and Ecological Reserves
I've only stubbed the Provincial Parks, Conservancies, Recreation Areas, and Heritage Parks. I've not created stub entries for the Protected Areas or the Ecological Reserves. The reason is mainly notability. Not sure if a Protected Area (or Ecological Reserve) is notable enough to merit a Wiki entry. Anyone agree/disagree? Mind you, there's enough work at the moment with the Provincial Parks alone, that we can always return to this question at a later date. --Dogbreathcanada 07:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Waste
All of the subsidiary pages, of this page, are a waste of space on wikipedia. I will maintain that this page may be useful and beneficial I do believe that every park DOES NOT need its own page. There is no need to have a page for every single park that exists in BC (especially when many are insignificant), nor in any land. MBob 23:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you. However, there are about a dozen subsidiary pages that have real legit articles, but unfortunately its very difficult to locate them now that there are stub article for hundreds. I think the stubs should be removed and only be recreated if/when someone actually intends to create an article for it. A list of actual non-stubs can be seen in this old version of the canadian provincial park article (although, even back then there were several stubs) Kilrogg 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK at the beginning of my post I did say that ALL of the pages are a waste of space, that was a mistake. I believe more in my second or third statement of "I do believe that every park DOES NOT need its own page. There is no need to have a page for every single park that exists in BC." With that being said I will redefine my opinion as this "Not every park that exists (in BC) deserves a wikipedia article about it," and I completely agree with Kilroggs comment of "I think the stubs should be removed and only be recreated if/when someone actually intends to create an article for it." MBob 05:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
aight but still would it be okay to have a comprehensive list with simply the names in black and not linking to other articles?? TotallyTempo 01:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)