Talk:National park/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An Invitation

Several Wikipedians have been working to set up this structure of the world's national parks and other preserved areas. The need now is to start filling this structure in with content.

A few parks, generally in the U.S., have articles already, but there is room for so much more. A few suggested guidelines have been worked out for these and related articles:

    • Natural or Historical Feature or Region -- all the information specific to the region, including pictures, or why would one want to visit. This should be linked into the natural and historical context for that feature or site. Example: Grand Canyon should not only be linked to the park, but to other articles about the Colorado River, Arizona, and the geology, hydrography, and ecology of the American southwest.
    • National Park or Reserve -- the organizational and historical information about the park itself as an entitiy, with links to the political and organizational schemes and structures it fits into. Example: Grand Canyon National Park should not only link into Grand Canyon but eventually other nearby or contigous parks or preserves, the National Park System, adjacent Native American reservations, etc.
  • There is more than one kind of park -- Nomenclature and categories change from one country to another -- something we are still working with. National parks in Britain are a very different thing than parks in the U.S. Also, what would be a national historical park or monument in the U.S. or Canada tends to be a National Trust property in England (which we could/should include into this structure somehow). Be inclusive, but in lists like those linked to this article, break out different kinds of properites as necessary.
  • More on Terminology: should there be a category nature park or natural park? These are often used and more general that the category national park. But they are oxymorons since parks are cultivated by humans and nature is not.
  • Pictures are good -- They do have to be PD or the equivalent of course. But such pictures do exist for many of the sites we would want articles about. NPS pictures, as government pictures are PD, but should be properly cited. As appropriate, your own snaps could be excellent (more emphasis on Jellystone Falls, and less on Aunt Mabel, though) See Grand Canyon for a good example.

Well, this is just a start -- and this is a talk page after all, so sound off if you have something to add or change. Remember -- edit boldly. ClaudeMuncey, Sunday, April 7, 2002

Hi, I added the two different entries on Grand Canyon NP and the Canyon itself, for reasons you indicated above. Additionally, this makes it possible to give history of the park (when did what are become a NP, when extended, etc.) separately from a history of the natural feature. The article entries on the features should also exist if only because they are more likely to be linked. If you want to structure the national park pages (or at least the US ones), you may set up WikiProject page, and link to it on all the NP pages.

Anyway, I'd like to contribute on some of the other parks as well, preferably on the ones I have visit or will visit in the near future. jheijmans

Two things I like about Wikipedia:

  • nifty people
  • new things I never saw before -- its a big place

I had not run into WikiProjects before, so thank you. I will work something up from the content above. and feel free and edit boldly . . . . especially if you have some nice pictures from the ones you visit. ClaudeMuncey, Tuesday, April 9, 2002

Hi, I have introduced a proposal for a WikiProject Protected Areas. That was before I read this talk page. You have some good ideas here which can also be used in the project. It's rather theoretical for the moment, but I'm planning on a few testcases in the near future (probably an Australian national park and some other kind of protected area). When you have the time could you have a look at it, and let me know what you think of it? Thanks! -- Guy

The articles in the list with links are probably candidates for redirecting/renaming "Protected areas of [country]", in the same way as I did with Australia. That way they are more inclusive and areas other than national parks can be included. Any objections? Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (protected areas), Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected Areas and compare with Protected areas of Australia. Guy 20:11 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)

External links

The external links only lists national parks in English-speaking nations. However, many non-English speaking countries have English site(s) dedicated to national parks (and some, are not in English, but still provide potentially useful contact information). Now, there is a separate WP article (see projects in the discussion above) for the natl. parks of the world, so, two years later, I invite others' suggestions as to whether to integrate the new links I just added (or all the links - i.e. linked internally) into this aforementioned article/project, or whether we should have a separate one for the National Park article (and especially considering the likely possibility of further links for other countries being added in the future). El_C

A Wikiproject is not an article. What I think you are asking is whether we should have a separate daughter project just for national parks (out of all protected areas). I would say no. For one thing, protected area classification varies greatly by country and for another we barely have any active contributors in the one Wikiproject. Rmhermen 18:37, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
Actually (and on further recollection), I was attempting to pose the question — not very successfully, I realize now — whether the govt. and otherwise agencies responsible for Natl. Parks (and respective equivalents) should be listed in this article or in the List of national parks article, or both. You are correct in stating that this does not, in fact, pertain to the protected area project. My question, then, was -not- whether we should have a separate natl. parks project, but I can easily see now how it could be construed as such. Sorry for the confusion. El_C


Image quantities, sizes, captions

I see all of the back-and-forth on the images. Here are my thoughts:

  • I remove "small" formatting wherever I find it because I cannot read it on the screen. I don't know what settings other people are using, but I have a Mac that I set up on which I use Netscape, Safari, and (something else), and it's too small in all of those; I also Work on a Windows system set up by someone else on which I use Explorer, and it's too small there. I don't know why we still support this format. Please don't use it is all I can say. Elf
So long as it is available, I suspect that I will continue to use it for all captions. I am going by a 1024-to-1280 which I think reflects the average. There must be settings on your Mac to make it legible. Since it is available in Wikipedia, I never even thought twice upon using it. Also, note that I use it also for bibliographical reference lists. I suggest you take this issue to higher channels as addressing it somewhat sporadically in individual articles will likely not solve this problem for you and other Mac users who face a similar discrapency. El_C
So you're saying it's a good idea that every time someone uses Wikipediathey have to use different settings than when they view everything else on the web? (And note that I said it's not a Mac 'problem'.) I don't think so. But someday I will bring it up elsewhere. Elf | Talk 21:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Not at all, I am simply trying to direct it when contributing towards what I see as the average resolution size of visitors, but that is just my own approach. This (average) will likely change in the future, and I presume the articles will invariably then be changed accordingly. Sorry, I misread your comment about it being a Mac issue. If you would like it to be addressed systemically, then you should bring it up elsewhere, and I encourage you to do so. El_C
  • Natl vs National--why on earth would one prefer "Natl" to "National"? Elf
I used it simply because it fits in the caption in one line at 1024:768 (which I understood to be a sound resolution average). Ditto for neglecting to bold it (it is still readable on this and other machines I used to view the article). Otherwise, it makes little difference one way or another. El_C
  • Size and placement of photos-- for a summary article like this, it would be easier to scan the *information* (which is primarily what this encyclopedia --and this article in specific--is about) if they are all on the smaller side and all consistently in the default location off to the right. Elf
All the pictures, with the exception of Dragon Pond (centre, but at the end of the article) here were placed at the right side when I originally submitted them, I agree enitrely with your argument on that front. See the revert that I just applied moments ago — it reflects the original placement of all the pictures. I address size bellow.El_C
  • Size in general: Remember that not everyone is using a huge screen to work on the internet. WHen I'm working on my laptop, images more than about 300-350px in Wikipedia take up too much real estate. Some of the original photo sizes in this article completely overwhelmed my laptop screen. Also remember that, even in the U.S., nearly half of people using the internet are using dial-up connections, not broadband, so although I like a lot of photos in an article, smaller file sizes (automatically done in Wikipedia when a smaller image is displayed) is much better. If the reader wants to see a large photo in its full glory, let them click & go to the image page. Elf
I just did not see anything wrong to have one-single picture at 599px at the end, and others at 199-to-299px. I set my monitor to 1024:768 when I work on WP. Normally, I would agree with you, but an article entitled national park inherently should place some emphasis on nice visuals (also). El_C
  • I would like to see even more variety of landscapes among the national parks. But please only with small, consistently placed images. Remember when we say that Wikipedia is not paper, that also means that layout design that you might use on paper doesn't necessarily apply to articles online, where the window sizes are scalable by the user and different screen sizes apply, so having images in various locations around the page might work on paper or on your particular browser setup, but this needs to be geared towards a wider audience. Elf
See my comment about my own picture placement (rightwards) above. I would also like to see a wider veriety of pictures and I encourage others to contribute these. Note that Yellowstone and Yosemite were purposfully placed nearby where they are mentioned in the text (as per the history of natl. parks). El_C
  • Please don't add photos of uncertain copyright & licensing origin. Means someone has to come through and clean them out later,or if this ever makes it to a featured article candidate (for example), someone will have to find all new, legit, images to use. Elf | Talk 20:45, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Point taken, but just to clarify, it was not uncertain, I was simply being absent-minded at the time (which I will attempt to avoid in the future). As mentioned, in the request made in my talk page today to better qualify these, my current HDD no longer possesses this information. I will try to retrace my steps as per the origins of each picture suffering from unclear licensing origin, but as said, it will take me some time, I suspect. Which I think is fine for now, as this article will not reach featured status anytime soon (though, of course, I am hopeful that eventually it could). El_C
I agree with Elf and with Grunt who changed it first. These pictures are just too large and (myself) too many for this small amount of text. Additionally the Yosemite picture is not of the same quality as the other picture and detracts from the overall appearance. The bolding is irrelevant (at least in my browser) -all links are bold. Adding or removing bolding from link doesn't change their appearance. Small tags and abbreviations are not desirable in captions. I think we some caption rules somewhere. Rmhermen 21:56, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Captions doesn't mention small text but its sparse examples (one in article, one on talk page) use normal text. I left a question there. Rmhermen 22:07, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Give me a chance to reply before you engage in any further reverts, and for the time being, leave my own version (the original). As said, I will go with the consensus, but it does not need to be reached immediately, within the next few minutes. Just be patient. This article has been picture-less for two years before I added my contributions, why the sudden rush? I will be back later with further (more specific) thoughts. I think we are making good progress with this discussion, and in fact, I am well on my way to be persuaded — I am only asking to allow for this discussion to take its due course (should not take long). El_C

Please stop reverting the changes of myself and Grunt. You are the one who started these reversion not us. Your version already has at least three people who disagree with it. I also left a request for comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected Areas. There is no sense in which yours is "the original" version. Rmhermen 22:52, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

There is a sense, it is the original for the purposes of our dispute, with respect to picture placement and captions (per se.) — and that is all I am refering to here. The reason I reverted back to my version is: Grunt simply changed my custom px-size into generic 'thumb,' and I found it to be an aesthetically poor choice. Unincidentally, he has yet sought to return and address this, so nothing happned. Then, as for your alternative (which, should be noted, is different from Grunt's), Elf has already mentioned, you have that picture on the left and we both think that picture should be on the right. I urge you again to remain patient with respect to changes to the original picture placement/captions until a consensus could be reached. By contrast, if you were to delete all the pictures which suffer from an unclear PD license, then I cannot say anything about that until I am able to demonstrate otherwise. To reiterate, the dispute is over your alternative, and mine stays until it is resolved, then it changes (and invariably these changes will also be changed & improved on at some point, and so on). With best intentions, I was just asking you to be patient, it will not take long to be resolved — again, my addition of pictures has been in place for over two months, before then, the article was picture-less for two years. Good call on alerting contributors from the Protected Areas project to this, their input is likely to make the process, from which I withdraw for the night, more expedient, and result in an improved version. El_C

I do not know why you keep insisting that your version is more important than mine or Grunt's. There is no reason that the page should stay at your version. I see the dispute as over your constant versions of any changes to your version. I also note that the response on Wikipedia Captions is that the CSS already renders caption text in a smaller font so using the small tag as well is not necessary. I have found "your" Shenandoah picture used at [1] but no mention of its origin there either. Rmhermen 14:43, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I never said it was more important, you are simply distorting now. I already said (and will not repeat if you refuse to read) that in the case of a dispute that will be the version up there until it is resolved, period. I really do not see why it needs to be so complicated. I already noted that source for Shenandoah that I submitted. Listen, you can go ahead and delete all the pictures and start from scratch, that is how much I am attached to any these (purportedly "my" pictures — a fine debating technique! ). I am not the only one who uses small for captions, so this is something that needs to be dealt with systemically rather on a sporadic, individual article basis. Lastly, I am going to choose to wait until other contributors step in as "dialogue" with you is proving rather circular, and esp., with an unecessarily combative tone you have been exhibiting since the beginning. El_C

You began the combat -instantly reverting any changes to your pictures. I have now replaced the pictures with ones from our other national park articles. I had a hard to finding them. A suprisingly large number (almost all) of our national parks articles have no pictures, especially ones outside the U.S. I have already noted that small captions are dealt with systematically. The CSS renders all caption smaller than regular text, so now there is no need to use the small tag. The Shenandoah picture was the only one I tried to look for -I saw you added them all at the same time and hoped to find that they came from a single PD archive. When they didn't seem to I didn't look any farther. Rmhermen 16:13, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

1. You never asked why I reverted back the changes you made to the original picture placement.

2. You never asked why I reverted back Grunt's changes to the original picture placement.

3. Instead, you kept insinuating I have some ego-based agenda, whereas I was merely trying to stick to the rules and processes as I understood them.

4. I still would like to see where it is mentioned that small tages are not allowed (systemically, as a policy) in captions.

5. I never said an .edu domain automatically means it is not copyrighted, I merely agreed with you that it is the only picture of lesser quality, thus, I was not going to bother to search for its origins (which, just by chance, I recall was from an .edu domain: a professor of geology, I believe).

6. I will attempt to be more diligant when submitting images in the future, that these have a clear PD licensce. The new pictures you have added to supplant mine seem very nice.

At any rate, I am stepping out. The record is clear here, and it is available for all to judge for themsleves. Based on this experience alone, I am hopeful that our paths do not cross again. All the best to you with your contributions to wikipedia. El_C

US focus

About half of the article is about US national parks. If all countries are to be covered in so much detail the article would get to be huge. Also, the link to the Lake District doesn't specify that that is in the US. And the 'see also' links are mostly to US stuff, without specifying that. In other words, there is rather a strong bias here. I don't have the time now to figure out what to do about that, just thought I'd point it out. DirkvdM 08:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, but be bold! If you don't like it, fix it. Here's one tip to save you some time: don't bother changing the link to the Lake District to show that it is in the US :) Naturenet | Talk 11:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I might put some work into this later (too busy with other things now). But why shouldn't it be pointed out that the Lake District is in the US? I happen to know this, but many people won't. This is a problem I run into regularly on Wikipedia. Many editors are from the US (logically) and make too many assumptions about the reader's knowledge about the US. Of course I worded it a bit strange; The info should not be added to the link but to the surrounding text. DirkvdM 07:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Apologies - I was mischieviously illustrating my point, which was that it is easy to make assumptions. Please read the Lake District article for an explanation. Naturenet | Talk 07:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

External links 2

Would anyone object to remove the bulk of those? We have a List of national parks that should be able to provide the reader with an article of national parks of the country in question. // Fred-Chess 22:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

So long as all the content is merged into List of national parks and a suitable link under a section head such as
Main article: List of national parks
is put into this page, then why not? Naturenet | Talk 09:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree. But whoever does this has to make sure that all links are checked (under the same country the link may differ) so that nothing is lost. DirkvdM 09:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with this move. Rmhermen 15:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
To clarify: My idea was to put all external links into the respective article, e.g. "Swedish National Preservation" ext link goes into National parks of Sweden. I think it would be in line with "Wikipedia is not a collection of links": i.e. we have coverage on the national parks with articles, why do we need a collection of external links ? Do I still have your support?
Ps. I changed to header name because I noticed there is already a header with this title. // Fred-Chess 15:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I would support either. The links seem misplaced here. However, do we actually have a article for every park system that we have a link for? I didn't check. Rmhermen 15:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
As Rmhermen. Seems fine to me, and there's no reason that you can't create stubs where the main article does not yet exist. It might be a good way to reorganise the pages, so if you'ree willing to put in the work, do go ahead. Naturenet | Talk 10:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Mt. Rainier and Mt. Rainier National Park

Should these two articles be combined in to one? If not, why? Hdt83 07:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no. One is about the mountain, and the other is about the park, which contains the mountain plus a whole lot more. Nationalparks 22:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please create more "Wildlife of ....." articles for all countries.

.... and kindly contribute to these new articles when you get time, and request others too.

See Wildlife of India for reference.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation for Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas of India & Conservation

If you are interested in Environment, Wildlife, Conservation and Nature etc. please join in to contribute, even starting off with making new stub class articles will be a great contribution.

Sincerely

Atulsnischal 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We need senior administrators or people who are long in Wikipedia to help us with the templates and for other further helps. Details can be seen in its talk page. IT's urgent. We want this wkiproject to be added to the exsisting WP:IND banner. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Er... what do I do?

Some1 just knida deleted the whole page, but I don't know how 2 change it bk. Can some1 do it plz, but also let me know how to do it, thanks! J S Firefox 15:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal to "settle" without claim?

If someone decided to settle in a national park, could they? If for example a person made a small cottage or small cabin, is this legal? As long as they don't claim and defend it as their property and open to everyone (and not harming the ecosystem and environment), is this generally allowed within parks? Just curious. Zachorious (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, as is so often mentioned on the Wikipedia Reference Desks, Wikipedia cannot give legal advice. Having said which, at least in Australia this could not legally be done, at least not as far as setting up a permanent dwelling (temporary camping, etc, is a different matter). I believe there have been cases of people being allowed to remain in their dwellings when the area including their property is declared a National Park, but not to actually establish new dwellings. --jjron (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Something...

I know this fact isnt known much, but Bogd Khan Uul became protected in 1778, and police were set up around the mountain in 1809. [2] --Chinneebmy talk 13:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hysterical yammering about Romania

Another example of indifference to wildlife conservation is the Romanian Parliament's discussions in September 2008 to open thirteen national parks to commercial hunting, in order to eliminate the wildlife from these areas. It is the first step toward an alleged dismantling of national parks in Romania and transformation into human settled areas

I edited the above and noted it is not cited. I noted in my edit summary and will indicate here also - there is nothing unusual about allowing hunting in national parks. Often it is the only way of balancing animal populations. In Canada, it is perfectly natural to permit hunting of big game in national parks, and in fact is actually beneficial to the continued existence of the ecosystem and the survival of the park itself, and all the creatures in it. Whomever provided this information sounds like an alarmist, but they would need to provide a cite either way if they really want to make the claim that "allowing hunting" really equals "secret plan to exterminate all wildlife and destroy the national parks." As it is now presented, it doesn't really add up without a proper cite.139.48.25.61 (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Gallery

Can I make the extreme and radical proposal that the gallery of pictures of Yellowstone NP be moved to, say, Yellowstone NP? Or is that too insane? 137.205.74.30 (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oldest parks

I removed this line from the article: "One of the oldest national parks in the world is situated in Mihintale, Sri Lanka. The king Devanampiya Tissa declared the area surounding Mihintale in 307 BC a reserve after being preached by a Bikkhu.[1]" First, it is not clear that this qualifies as a "national park" or as a first as described in the article - as the source discusses the problem of excessive development in the area and that its legal authority was established in the 1930s. However, it does point out that we need to expand the beginning of the history section to include earlier precedents (parks, reserves, royal forests). Such as the Bogd Khan Uul mentioned above. Rmhermen (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.lankalibrary.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=3609&

Well I was just about to suggest The New Forest, or Nova Forestae, in Hampshire, established in 1079 by William I of England. Younge1986 (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a claim on another web page that "Mackinac National Park was a U.S. national park that existed from 1875 to 1895 on Mackinac Island in northern Michigan, making it the second National Park in the United States after Yellowstone." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_National_Park This might be appropriate as a footnote. Mergy (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The New Forest, as established in England in 1079, was most certainly not what we would call a national park. It was established as a royal forest, a private hunting territory for royalty. In England and Wales, national parks were established by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the first coming into operation in 1951. The New Forest was the 12th (and, to date, penultimate) park designated, in 2005. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The article currently says, repetitively, that Yellowstone is the first national park. Then, in another place, it says it isn't. Perhaps a more precise definition of "national park" would be helpful. 76.102.1.129 (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"National park"

Why do National Parks start with Yellowstone? Why don't royal parks / preserves count? 76.66.197.30 (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem starts in the intro of the article, where in my view the definition is too general. In my understanding a national park is not just any natural preserve; it is a park enjoyed by people. What is great about Yellowstone and other U.S. National parks is that they are open to the public. Sufficient amenities are built to handle visitors needs, and entry fees are modest. On the other hand, a royal hunting preserve or a restricted access wildlife area, where members of the public would be viewed as trespassers, would not count. In the U.S., there are also National Forests, Wildlife Refuges, and many other types of natural preserves which have different purposes and access restrictions and are clearly different. The lede of the article, though, just states: "A national park is a reserve of land, declared or owned by a national government, they are protected from most human development and pollution." That doesn't capture what a park is! doncram (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding of the term "royal parks" here, at least as far as they are defined in England. Not only are they open to the public, the public are not usually charged for entering them. However, they are not normally classed as National parks, often being more like municipal parks, and in the United Kingdom, it is usually considered that the first National park was the Peak District, the inspiration for which was drawn from the United States. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Historical Opposition to National Parks

For anyone looking into the history of National Parks, historical opposition to the parks on economic, and other grounds may be important to look at to contrast with current economic thriving of the parks (I give economics as one issue that has been contentious, but other issues involve removal of indigenous folks from park territories). For leads to issues of historical U.S. park opposition for economic reasons see: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/nrepa_local_interests_and_conservation_history/C73/L38/ be informative for readers to learn about parallels between opposition interests that are common across national boundaries. I son't have the time yet to work on this, but I will get to this when I can. Nnoell (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Teide

The claims that Teide is the most visited national park in Europe, although cited from Spanish sources, is extremely dubious. Figures released show between 2.8 million and 3.5 million visitors per year, depending on which year is chosen. The Peak District in England has between 10 million and 22 million visitors. Similarly, the Lake District in England gets about 12 million visitors per year. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Confusion in text about origins

In the "History" section there is description of the establishment of both Yosemite and Yellowstone, which includes the statement that the establishment of Yellowstone was "a process formally completed on October 1, 1890". The Yellowstone article has no mention of that date, while the consolidation of Yosemite as a national park did occur through a bill passed on that date, according to the Yosemite article. It appears that the history of the two parks has become confused in this National Parks article, though it is possible that the 1890 bill addressed both parks. Can someone more knowledgeable than me about the actual history please clear this up? Ted Sweetser (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Pictures - too many

We are lucky to have a large number of high quality images of national parks. But for the size of the text in this article we already have to many images. We need to think about what we are trying to illustrate and choose an appropriate number and variety, Rmhermen (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. Some articles have more images than text, and they're perfectly workable. Some people are more text-oriented and some more graphics-oriented. Don't assume you speak for even a majority of readers. 76.102.1.129 (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
To quote from our image guidelines, MOS:Images: "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. If the article is about a general subject for which a large number of good quality images are available, (e.g., Running), editors are encouraged to seek a reasonable level of variety in the age, gender, and race of any people depicted. Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful. For example, three formal portraits of a general wearing his military uniform may be excessive; substituting two of the portraits with a map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath may provide more information to readers. You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." Rmhermen (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I have merged several images into galleries, per WP:LAYIM. There are many types of national parks in the world, which the images properly portray. Per the new image layout, and per the many types of national parks, I don't feel that the number of images in the article is excessive at this time. NorthAmerica1000 02:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Situation in European Union

European Environment Agency Protected areas in Europe – an overview In: EEA Report No 5/2012 Kopenhagen: 2012 ISBN 978-92-9213-329-0 ISSN 1725-9177 pdf doi=10.2800/55955

Tourism

Empty sections

These unfinished section should be expanded before being re-added to the article. Rmhermen (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC) 

==Biodiversity and other objects of protection==

===Biodiversity===
Main article: biodiversity
==== Marine national parks ====
*Marine National Park, Gulf of Kutch in India, established 1982

===Scientific studies in national parks===

===The ten largest national parks in the world===

==Legal framework==

contradictory reasons why Yellowstone was designated a national park

This article states confidently in its main text that perceived mismanagement at Yosemite by the state of California was why Yellowstone was made into a national park. In a map caption, it is stated confidently that "When Yellowstone was established, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho were territories, not states. For this reason, the federal government had to assume responsibility for the land, hence the creation of the national park." Both assertions seem like reasonable speculations, don't they?  :) --doncram 03:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Reducing overlinking - a first pass

This article is seriously overlinked! I took a first swat, by removing some of the most obvious cases. Per WP:OLINK, do not link to "The names of major geographic features, locations (e.g. United States, London, New York City, France, Berlin...)". However, there are still so many links that it makes it harder to read the article, not easier. As Wikipedia puts it, the excessive number makes "...it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly." --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Emoji

Redirect 🏞️ to this? 94.175.234.132 (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

number

How many National park is in the world?--Kaiyr (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Why nationalized, why not multinational parks?

Why nationalized, why not multinational parks?

Do you even know what a nation is, a race? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.174.114.51 (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

You are using the wrong definition of "national". There are some national parks which border national parks in other countries but I am not away of any with integrated management, only cooperative. Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park is an example. Rmhermen (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_park/Archive_1&oldid=1180682479"