Template talk:Protected areas of Pennsylvania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pennsylvania (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Discussion moved here from Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Pennsylvania state parks[edit]

Comment: I would love to see {{State parks of Pennsylvania map}} incorporated into the {{Protected Areas of Pennsylvania}} template, similar to {{National parks of the United States}}. Nationalparks 21:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • That's a good idea. I wish I knew how to do it. Do you? How about you Ruhrfisch? This would be a lot of work. There are many protected areas in PA that are not state parks and therefore not on the locator map. Dincher 01:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think I can do it, but I am also concerned that there are many other protected areas (state forests, scenic rivers, national parks and a national forest) which would make the map even more crowded, and in the cases of the state and national forests and rivers are not easily represented by one dot. I am not sure if I could do it just for the state parks section of the template? May I suggest that further discussion of this idea be moved to Template talk:Protected Areas of Pennsylvania as it is not really concerned with the peer review of the List of Pennsylvania state parks? Thanks, Ruhrfisch 05:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

      I moved the discussion there, but {{Protected Areas of Pennsylvania}} template is not a nav box (it is a very fancy wikitable) so my kluge idea of pasting from {{National parks of the United States}} and tweaking won't work. Maybe VerruckteDan can do this - he made the Pennsylvania Protected Areas template. Ruhrfisch 05:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

      • I do like the suggestion, just not sure the best way to try and implement it. I'm gonna spend some time this weekend to see what kinds of alternatives I can come up with. VerruckteDan 16:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks. My guess is there are enough parks it would be in the upper right corner and still have text of park names below it (so not as confusing with the other protected areas). I tried pasting the template in in various places but either broke the nav box table or could not get the text to wrap around the map. All my tries were previews, no saves. Ruhrfisch 17:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Since there are not just state parks in the template, it was decided not to try and incorporate the map. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


I changed the "|" to a "•" between each of the parks, as that is the more widely used separator in the park templates. VerruckteDan 22:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks Dan - I tried adding the clickable map into the template. It worked but was centered vertically in a column at the right side - couldn't get the text to wrap. All previews, no saved edits. Ruhrfisch 04:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

National Parks?[edit]

Since most, if not all, of these places are not National Parks, shouldn't this section have a different title? Or are there too many different types of nationally owned facilities to give it a concise title? By that I mean parks, monuments, historical parks etc., Dincher 22:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Would "National Park Service" work (with a line break to force Service onto its own line)? It seems as if all the properties are under the administration of the NPS. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, National Park Service would work. Good idea. The title National Park made it seem like they all were national parks. Let me see if I can change it. Dincher 00:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wyoming State Forest[edit]

Should Wyoming state forest be removed from the template since it is now a former state forest? Dincher 23:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Sure, there are a bunch of other former state forests, but it is the only one with an article (I think). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Formatting issue[edit]

Since this was switched from the generic navbox, the entries are no longer centered and the type is noticably smaller. I am Ok with the smaller type (I guess), but prefer the centered text. What do others think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed the change. Dincher 00:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I too can live with the smaller text, but think that it should be centered. I'm on a business trip all week with limited time for the internet, so I'll look into it more when I get back, unless either of you figure out the necessary code to center it. VerruckteDan 05:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree about the centering. I wish I had a clue about the code. Dincher 20:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wild Areas[edit]

Is there a way to incoporate protected wild areas in pennsylvania such as Hammersley Wild Area and Quehanna Wild Area?Tstrobaugh (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a look. Dincher (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It should easily be done if a consensus is reached. I can see a need for it, but also see it as possibly being redundant since they are part of the state forests. I could go either way. We'll also need a reference to go with to make sure they're all on the template. I am pretty sure that Ruhrfisch has this information. I might too somewhere. I will look. Dincher (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this too. If I recall correctly, there are 16 wild areas and 61 Natural Areas, so it would be a big addition to the template to add them all. Some might also argue that they are already there as part of the state forests (though Quehanna is in more than one forest). I guess the two options would be to have listings for all the Wild Areas and all the Natural Areas (for example Snyder-Middleswarth Natural Area, a former state park and National Natural Landmark, or to make a List of Pennsylvania State Forest Wild and Natural Areas article and just link that in the box. The question is do we want to add 77 things to this list or one? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
My feeling is that adding the 77 is way too much to a template that is already pretty full. Perhaps the template could be split into several templates, one each for state parks, the rivers, state forests, etc. with a link to all lists at the top of each template. Dincher (talk) 21:03, May 10, 2009 (UTC)
I think that all of the state protected area templates are single templates, so I don't think we should split this unilaterally. Would it make sense to ask at the Protected Areas WikiProject? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Nah, I think one link to a List of article will do the trick. Dincher (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) Source book here Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I added List of Pennsylvania state forest wild areas, still plan to work on the 61 Natural Areas list. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Same request for wetlands. I know there is a template for {{Susquehanna River System}}.Tstrobaugh (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the main author of that template - glad you like it. The Wild and Natural Areas have state designation (DCNR) - this wetlands list seems to be places, mostly in the central part of the state, where these students have been - not sure it is an "official" list. Another template would be National Natural Landmarks in the state. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

New Federal Organization Proposal[edit]


  • Merge categories with single items
    • Other Protected Areas: Appalachian Trail, Allegheny National Forest, Grey Towers National Historic Site
  • Create categories for entries with more-than-1 item:
    • National Scenic Rivers: Upper Delaware, Middle Delaware
    • National Recreation Areas: Allegheny, Delaware Water Gap
    • National Heritage Areas: Delaware and Lehigh, Lackawanna (there's a bunch of others not even listed that should be here. I'll add if I get a chance.)

Total number of categories remains the same. 3 are deleted/ 3 are created. —Fluous (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

OK by me. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)