Jump to content

Talk:List of Pennsylvania state parks/archive

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


Length?

The list is a bit long for a single column without any breaks. Maybe we should split it into parts of the alpabet, sat a-j, k-l, m-s, t-z or so on. --Ray 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Upgraded list

Nice work with the updated List of Pennsylvania state parks. I was looking at it and saw some problems, that I can't figure out the cause and hence can't correct. First, the {{convert}} template is not working for the last 6 current parks (Varden - Yellow Creek). Instead it's a link to convert, and I can't find any incorrect wikicode. Second, the {{Protected Areas of Pennsylvania}} template is not appearing, its showing as a link to Template:Protected Areas of Pennsylvania. Finally, I tried to use the {{reflist}} template, and the footnotes stopped working after number 91 or 92. Anyway, just wanted to get a fresh set of eyes on theses issues. VerruckteDan 19:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I tried something which makes me think it is a limit problem. I deconverted 4 of the convert templates in the comments and the link to convert now appears then only for the last two parks. So I think it only does so many converts when the problem arises. I will also say of the three times I have looked at the lsit since the move, the problem has been there twice, but once they all worked. I saw a similar problem with footnotes on peer review when there were too many. Not sure how this helps, Ruhrfisch 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For the references, is it necessary to have the footnotes? I assume your goal is to have links to both the Wikipedia site for each park and their official page at DCNR. What would you say to just including weblinks next to each park instead of the footnote link. See List of largest cable-stayed bridges for an example. The rank of each bridge is a link to an official website. Let me know your thoughts on this idea. VerruckteDan 03:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason Dincher and I put the references in is that we want to nominate this for a featured list eventually, so that needs refs. Ruhrfisch 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dan's idea about the web links. It makes sense and shortens the page some. I have no idea how to fix the problems, but I am sure that thre is a solution that we can find. Maybe some of the problems are due to the size of the list. Dincher 18:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't read your reply and reasons for the footnotes before my above comments. They no longer are my opinion. I say stick with the footnotes. As I have been working on Lycoming County I have noticed that the maps are sometimes out of whack. Maybe this is a wiki problem and not a List of Pennsylvania state parks problem? Dincher 18:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure having 121 references is necessary (or even desirable) for a featured article status. The List of US Presidents is a featured article and is not over-loaded with references. In fact it has a few notes and then 2 general sources for the whole list. VerruckteDan 18:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
When we put it up for consideration I am sure that we will get a good answer to the question about the references. I noticed that the template is back up. Did you do something to fix it? Dincher 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I took out several more convert templates in the comments section and now all the others work and the Protected Areas navbox works too (I think the problem is having more than a certain number of transcluded templates). I changed the full name to "PA DCNR" in all but the first ref to make them shorter so the two columns ref trick could be used (have yet to do the 2 cols). I want to see what they say about the refs in peer review and FAC. If there was one list of all parks online we could cite that (which is what the US Presidents and US National Parks featured lists do). Since there is no single all encompassing source I know of, we have 120 refs for 120 parks plus a few for history. Ruhrfisch 22:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's a link to the DCNR's page with an alphabetical listing of all current PA state parks, [1] VerruckteDan 22:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the link Dan - not sure how I missed it before. I checked and there are all 120 PA state parks listed there (despite it saying 117 parks at the top - maybe they don't count the the three conservation areas or maybe they don't update the count as they add parks?). Since it will be a pain to take all the ref tags out (and worse to have to put them back in again) so I think I will keep the 120 refs in until WP:PR or even WP:FAC and see what the consensus is there (although my guess is they will want them out). Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 01:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you believe that I wrote over 100 articles about the PA state parks and never once ran across the list that Dan found? [2] I think that when this list goes up for PR and FAC that they will ask for the long list of refs to be but. Maybe we could save this list as it is back on the Frog and make the change that the three of us seem to agree on List of Pennsylvania state parks? Dincher 02:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess my problem with having two verions of the list (here and User:Ruhrfisch/Frog) is making sure they are the same except for the refs. Since the list is still being worked on (adding water bodies, for example, and checking on the last few missing park dates and sizes), I worry if we copy it too soon there will be a lot of duplicate work to make the two versions the same. Or am I misunderstanding the comment? Ruhrfisch 15:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-DCNR administered parks

Ruhrfisch, in your last edit, you mentioned that 6 of the current parks are managed by organizations other than the PA DCNR. Which 6 are they? I looked through the list and the only one that mentioned a different administrator was Hillman State Park (Pennsylvania Game Commission, though the Hillman article still lists DCNR as the governing body). Anyway, the other 5 parks should probably include this fact in the notes column. I also think there should be a footnote after the sentence in the opening that lists the 6 parks for easy reference. VerruckteDan 16:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

List

All oddballs worth perhaps mentioning

Historically also good to mention the five National Recreation Demonstration Areas (CCC and WPA built, part of National Park service to 1945): Blue Knob State Park, French Creek State Park, Hickory Run State Park, Laurel Hill State Park, and Raccoon Creek State Park. Ruhrfisch 21:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

    • Big Spring State Park is bigger than just a picnic area. It has some trails. The others listed are basically picnic areas. Salt Springs State Park is managed by the friends. There are a few other aspiring to be like it but none that are as sophisticated. Salt Springs is something of a "model". I agree that the former demonstration areas bear mentioning, as do the Army Corps dams, and the oddballs.
      • Thanks Dinch. I will not include Big Spring as a picnic area. I went through the list off and on most of the day and when I finished it there were alredy Dincher's replies there, but I just pasted mine in after the edit conflict. I cleaned it up a bit just now. I will try to get the intro in shape tonight. Ruhrfisch 22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

{{convert}} template

A question for you guys about the {{convert}} template. As much as I like this template, I'm wondering if it should be used so extensively on this page. Maybe instead it should be typed out, with the metric numbers coming from the template's output. My reason for suggesting this is that with over 100 transcluded templates, the page seems to be sluggish in loading and editing. Have you noticed this problem? I've encountered it consistently on both my home and work computers. VerruckteDan 17:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs

Please let me know what you think of the lead paragraphs. I want to add brief paragraphs before the name change and former parks tables too, but am calling it an evening now. Do you think the parks should be listed in the text (as they are now), or should they be in a note (as the counties without parks are)? Looking at the History pages at DCNR I saw Presque Isle has had a name change and two parks were given to the US Park Service (Independence Hall on July 4 1776, and Delaware Water Gap, but it had a different name). I am also near certain that some of the current PHMC sites were once state parks (besides the couple already listed). Edit away, Ruhrfisch 05:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • They look good, the one thing I noticed is that the links to the Notes section don't seem to work. When clicking on the "a" or "b" reference links, the page does not jump to the notes section, and clicking on them in the notes section does not jump to their locaiton in the text. VerruckteDan 05:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • One last suggestion on the notes section (at least for now). Can you make the indentations in this section the same as those in the reference section? VerruckteDan 16:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • All of the lead paragraphs look pretty good to me. Well done! Dincher 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe I'm being too nitpicky, but that indentation isn't quite what I had in mind. If I knew the proper coding to get what I was after, I'd do it and see what you guys thought about it. Anyway, for consistency with the references section, I'm trying to get the "a" and "b" indented the same about as the numbers in the references. The ":" indent is more than that, "*" is the proper amount of indentation, but of course creates a bullet point. Also, I'm trying to figure out how to indent the text out away from the "a" and "b", so that its stands out a little better (again, in the style of the reference section). Does anyone know the coding necessary for this? VerruckteDan 17:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks - do you think it worth adding the parks with National Register of Historic Places sites in a note? Does anything in the text now belong in a note?

        I have a couple more tweaks and the name and past parks sentences to add, but I think it is getting close to ready to submit to Peer Review (and we could work on filling in the blanks while it was in PR - my guess is it might take some time there). When do you think it should submitted to WP:PR??

        As for the indents, I know what you mean Dan, but am not sure how to do it. El Greco and some other featured articles use the notes, so I think they are OK as they are, but it would be nice to have the indentation etc. consistent. I have not looked at the {{Note_label}} template - maybe ask on its talk page? Ruhrfisch 21:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

        • There are so many with historic sites. I really don't think it necessary to add a note on them, if peer review asks for it, then it's a different story. Might as well submit it to peer review. Can't hurt. I will update the blanks too. Dincher 21:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

I have made the changes needed and think it is about ready to submit to Peer Review. Will submit it tomorrow, unless I hear otherwise. Take care, Ruhrfisch 04:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

References

I just switched the reference section to use the {{reflist}} template, and made it 2 columns as try and use the space more efficiently. I also have a question, is there a reason that in references 3-8 that Department of Conservation and Natural Resouces is spelled out instead of abbreviated like in all later references? VerruckteDan 05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for catching that - I think I just fixed them all. It was a copy and paste error, sorry. Another thing to decide on is whether the comments end with a period or not - most do not, but we should be consistent. Thanks for the two columns fix. I use IE7 and the monobook skin and don't see two columns though. Ruhrfisch 05:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Status

I updated all the remarks - tried to keep them all to 2 lines of text on my browser, none are longer than 3 lines. Each should start with a capital letter, have no end punctuation (they are almost all phrases, not sentences), and they have minimal articles (the, a, an). I tried to note all the Army Corps Dam parks, all picnic areas, all undeveloped areas (should Varden be added as undeveloped?), all the Rec. Demo. Areas, and added notes for National Register parks and DCNR's 21 parks on the Twenty Must See Parks list (DCNR has another list labeled "116 parks" wih 120 on it). I switched Winter and Worlds End remarks so they didn't duplicate the name change remarks below.

I think it is nearly ready to go to WP:FLC, just needs the rest of the water bodies. I check the PennDOT county maps and list creeks/rivers before lakes. If there is just a lake, it needs a stream. Feel free to revert if I screwed up anything.

I also think they will have us take out the 120 individual park refs in FLC. The list is over 80 kb now and that will save about 30 kB. I want to wait until FLC to take them out though. What do you think about readiness for FLC? Ruhrfisch 14:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is ready for FLC. Let me look at Varden and we'll see about it. Maybe DCNR will use this list to update their list. Dincher 15:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It says that Varden is currently being developed. I don't think it needs to be in the same note as the undeveloped parks. Perhaps create a note for parks currently under development? Erie Bluffs, Swatara, Varden and others would fit.Dincher 15:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I was not clear before, the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph in Overview now reads "Seven parks are undeveloped with no facilities, although the last four of these are in the process of being developed: (Allegheny Islands, Benjamin Rush, Bucktail, Erie Bluffs, Prompton, Swatara, and Varden)." and the remarks for each of these parks mentions it being either undeveloped or is being developed (these are not notes). I also cut remarks so now only Blue Knob, Kinzua Bridge, Laurel Hill, and Laurel Mountain are 3 lines long in remarks in my browser.

I now have the "Our Precious Heritage: PA state parks" centennial history book by Cupper and it will take me several days to get all the info out of it for the list and articles. Lots of founding dates, and I have already found several former parks no longer in existence or that have had name changes (need to check which it is). Maurice K Goddard was Sandy Creek before name change, for example. Hopefully by the time the streams and lakes are done, I will have all the new info too. I imagine I will need some help tracking some old parks down - will ask as they come up. Ruhrfisch 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel comfortable sending it to FLC until: 1) all the water bodies are OK (stream(s) first and lake(s) second, stream listed if there is a lake, if no water then "none"); and 2) the former parks and name changes are as complete as possible from Cupper's book (the current link [3] to the article in PA Heritaqe magazine is a very condensed version of the book). Ruhrfisch 13:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

All water bodies at least have an entry now, although not all have been checked. Gouldsboro Lake has not named stream. Do we want to wikilink so many of the small lakes? My guess is they would not have articles of their own anytime soon (or ever). I looked up Linn Run in the Cupper book, but it is not listed for a date, nor is the area of Laurel Mountain given. I am maybe halfway done going through the book page by page. Ruhrfisch 20:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to have some many red links for little lakes and streams. The Corps of Engineers does have good info on their lakes for the Baltimore and Pittsburgh district. There is a quirk in the Philly district pages. I created East Branch Lake using their info and Kettle Creek Reservoir could also be easily created. It's basically already there within the Kettle Creek State Park article. Dincher 21:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Dinch, I can check my Gazetter of PA Streams for any of the red links (none of the tiny ones, but Hyner Run and Pohopoco Creek are likley in there, as is Antes Creek / Rauchtown Run, and make stubs. I am OK delinking the small lakes for now, but would just as soon wait on the streams until I can check. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 22:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I am mothball deep in Grame Park now anyway. Dincher 22:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

More probable former state parks

I have a source that lists 12 more former units of the state park / forest system here (PDF). They are as follows :

Name, County, now X State Forest whatever, was this type in 1937
  1. Pecks Pond, Pike County, now Delaware SF Picnic Area, was Recreational Reserves
  2. Snow Hill, Monroe County,now Delaware SF Picnic Area, was Recreational Reserves
  3. Joyce Kilmer, Union County, now Bald Eagle SF Natural Area, was Wayside Areas
  4. Sideling Hill, Fulton County, now Buchanan SF Picnic Area, was Wayside Areas
  5. Tea Spring, Clinton County, now Bald Eagle SF but nothing (map has Old Tea Spring trail), was Wayside Areas
  6. Alan Seeger, Huntingdon County, now Rothrock SF Picnic Area, was Forest Monument
  7. Bear Meadows, Centre County, now Rothrock SF Natural Area, was Forest Monument
  8. Detweiler Run, Centre County, now Rothrock SF Natural Area, was Forest Monument
  9. McConnell Narrows, Union County, now Bald Eagle SF but nothing (not on map), was Forest Monument
  10. Mount Logan, Clinton County, now Bald Eagle SF Natural Area, was Forest Monument
  11. Martins Hill, Bedford County, now Buchanan SF Martin Hill Wild Area, was SF Lookouts
  12. Mount Riansares, Clinton County, now Bald Eagle SF but nothing (map has Riansares Road, vista), was SF Lookouts

They seem as if they could be classified as state forest areas, but each category also included what were then or are now state parks: Recreational Reserves also has Clear Creek, Colton Point, Cowans Gap, Kooser Lake, Parker Dam, Promised Land Lake (a State Forest Park), Whipple Dam, Whirl's End; Wayside Areas also has Big Spring, Cherry Spring, Black Moshannon, Colerain, Greenwood Furnace, Halfway (RB Winter), Kettle Creek, Mont Alto (a State Forest Park), Pine Grove Furnace, Reeds Gap, SB Elliott, Sizerville; Forest Monument also has Ole Bull, Snyder-Middleswarth (a State Forest Park); and SF Lookouts has Leonard Harrison.

I want to include these in the former state parks list, but wonder are they really former state parks? See also here: Bear Meadows, Detweiler Run, Alan Seeger, Joyce Kilmer and McConnell Narrows, Mount Logan, Mount Riansares. I checked them all on the current SF maps and most still exist in some marked form as noted. Ruhrfisch 05:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  • If nothing else I could include these in a note, (along with a note giving the 10 Class A and 16 Class B Camp areas from 1924). Cupper inlcudes both of these in footnotes (although he has a typo and SB Elliott is "Smith Elliott"). The concern I have is that I don't have a source that says they were definitely "state (forest) parks", but I do have known contemporary and future state parks in each of those 1937 categories. Ruhrfisch 05:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that a note should do the trick. The list of former parks is getting to be pretty long itself. Dincher 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Another thought. The places that are now "state parks" (ex Clear Creek) were probably upgraded while the others (ex Joyce Kilmer) were either left alone or downgraded. Dincher 16:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks, I will make a note or two. I also think once the red links are done or gone, we can save it in Frog and then take the 120 refs out for FLC. No one has been in favor of keeping them, the list is up to 91 kb and taking out most of the parks refs will save about 30 kb (some will have to stay in - Tohickon alt name history is in Ralph Stover, for example). Thanks, Ruhrfisch 17:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have taken a brief glimpse at the red link waters. None of them appear to be major in any sort of way. I propose that we go ahead and remove these red links in the next couple of days. What are your opinions? Dincher 19:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the category List of Pennsylvania state parks needed in the category section. It seems to be redundant. Dincher 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I think all red link lakes except US Army Corps lakes could be delinked. Presumably there is enough info out there to make stubs for those lakes. I need to look at my PA Gazetteer of Streams and make stubs. I have only had a chance to look up a couple, but Pohopoco, Hyner, Antes (Rauchtown) are all in it and I imagine several others may be. Let me finish the notes and then I will work on that.

I know it seems redundant but the list is the parent article of the category and should stay in, at least as far as I understand it. Ruhrfisch 01:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I will leave things alone for now. Dincher 03:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I made stubs for Recreation Demonstration Area and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to get rid of the red links in the article itself. USACE Lake stubs are next. Ruhrfisch 03:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked all the wikilinks under comments and they should be good to go. Some of the links are repeated several times. I deleted the US Army Corps of E's wikilink for Beltzville since it is in Bald Eagle just above. Not sure if the repeated wikilinks are desirable or not. I will leave them alone for now. I will check the other wikilinks tomorrow. Dincher 02:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (and thanks for catching the pothole fix). Duplicate wikilinks are to be avoided within a secion, but with 120 parks, it is probably OK as long as they are not adjacent links (like the USACE dams). I have been linking parks each time they appear in the three smaller lists - I think that is OK as they are new sections. I am owrking on the note. Ruhrfisch 02:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ready for FLC?

I am done with all the history I could find. I copied the large version to Frog, then removed the 120 separate refs for the individual parks (went from 96 kb to 68 kb). Please look it over and unless there are major problems, I assume we can submit it to FLC this evening? Who wants to do the honors of submitting it? Ruhrfisch 15:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Things are looking good. I just did a quick read thru, and nothing jumped out as needing work. I'd say go ahead and submit. VerruckteDan 16:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Dan, I just found out where the former Penn State Forest was and that meant Locusts Public Camping Ground couldn't be Locust Lake SP, so I fixed that. I will wait to hear from Dincher. FYI, I also asked User:IvoShandor to look the List over again as his/her peer review comments were very helpful. Ruhrfisch 18:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that it is ready for FLC. My vote is for Ruhrfisch to have the honors of submitting it. I wish we could get Choess to look at it. I don't think that he has been on wiki lately. IvoShandor is also an excellent source for help. Dincher 20:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Geobox

Dincher and Ruhrfisch, what are your feelings on {{Geobox Protected Area}}? I like the Geobox series of templates and was curious what you would think about utilizing it on the PA state parks in place of the infobox. I've talked with Caroig a bit about this Geobox and there are two issues that I feel need to be addressed before a final decision should be made. They both related to the area:

  1. The plural of acre needs to be cleared up, I spoke of it to Caroig here. Is the appreviation of acre the singular form of the word?
  2. The conversion standard currently used is acres to sq km. That is not one of the conversion that the Geobox performs. Caroig explains his reasoning for the acres to hectares conversion. It makes sense to me, but I don't really have a preference for one type over the other.

Anyway, I wanted to bring this up and get your thoughts, especially since you both seem to pressing on into IN, NC and OH. I guess the temptation of that book "North Carolina's State Parks" was just too much to resist. VerruckteDan 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the Geobox. It looks okay, but I prefer the protected area infobox. The Geobox seems like it would work great for huge places like Yellowstone National Park but not for small places like Prouty Place State Park. That being said, I can live with either one. I won't take my ball home and quit playing if the change is made. That NC State Park book is still on mind but I haven't used it yet. I probably will eventually. For now it's Indiana, a place I have never been and probably won't go to. =) Dincher 20:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I am also OK with either box - I need to switch over articles already to Caroig's Geobox River, so this would be more to do ;-). I think this conversion could also be done with WP:AWB.

I would ask about the box at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas. Caroig got some good feedback from WikiProject:Rivers on the River Geobox and the Protected areas folks would know about why square kilometers are preferred over hectares (I also prefer hectares, but they are decprecated for some reason). Acre does not list the abbreviation, and I am not sure what it is. I prefer acres (plural) if a place is anything but exactly 1 acre in size (i.e. 0.35 acres or 35 acres). Hope this helps and thanks for asking - not sure how I wound up in Indiana (thought it would easier that Illinois as all of the articles are there already). Ruhrfisch 20:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'm not gonna push the change at this time. But I definately agree that the member os WikiProject Protected Area should be polled before any decision is made. VerruckteDan 22:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sortable table

I do not want to nitpick, but I have noticed that sorting the table by size yields the alphabetical order, rather than size order. It probably has to do with the fact, that entries in that column are text values rather than numbers. This should be corrected in a featured list (I would have done it myself, but I do not know how). Great job, otherwise, the list is very helpful. Cheers! Qblik 03:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much. I had also noticed that but was not sure how to fix it either. I will ask and see how to fix it, if it can be fixed.

    I also plan to make the edits so only a part of the lead and first few lines of the table would show up if it were Featured as the Featured List in the Featured content section. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 11:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    • It seems like the list puts the area in order based on the digits. If we make sure that all the numbers are five digits long I think the problem might be fixed. For example Allgheny State Park would be changed from 43 acres to 00043 acres. I think it would work if it looks like this in the edit page 43 acres. Look at the edit page of this page too to see what I did. I will try it on the Frog and let you know what happens. Dincher 15:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dan - I noticed in the example it was just a number in the table - if worse came to worse, could we go to two columns (acres and sq km) with no units, just the header labels? I will try to add the code for display in Featured content. Why don't we add the work in progess tag when making these big edits to avoid edit conflicts? Thanks, Ruhrfisch 17:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Set up for display in Featured Content

I believe I added the proper tags for display in the Featured Content area. You can check it by adding {{list preview}}, then doing preview (but please don't save the list with the preview template in). Thanks, Ruhrfisch 12:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

National Natural Landmarks ?

Do we want to add the National Natural Landmarks in current and former parks to the list? Probably add a sentence in the intro saying something like "Eight current parks and one former park contain at least part of eight different National Natural Landmarks" and than have a note listing them. For details see the official web page listing NNLs in Pennsylvania. Also, see List_of_National_Natural_Landmarks#Pennsylvania - are these something to add to the {{Protected Areas of Pennsylvania}} navbox?

Here are the NNLs / parks:

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like the thing to do to me. Let's do it. Dincher (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I added the new note ("d"), rearranged the other notes, and added the "d" to the eight parks. Feel free to change as needed, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

map ubuntu_(Linux_distribution)

There are five previous references to map, or maps; but, I am ambivalent as to whether they are relevant to the fact that on this machine, the map's dots are ten percent, or more, to the left of the borders.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 12:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean? Dincher (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it means the user is having trouble seeing the dots on the wikilinked map at the top of the article? Sort of like what Dincher saw with the Florida parks map one time. The map works for me in IE, sorry it is not working for you. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hect.

Do we want to convert to hectacres or hectares or whatever they are on this list? We have made the change from km squared to the hects. on Black Moshannon and Worlds End. Dincher (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess nobody saw this question awhile back. What do you think of the FA stars next to the FA articles in the list? Keep them or chuck them? Dincher (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the hectares comment before - I think it is a good idea and can do the conversion if you want. I need to add a few more former parks from Forrey's book too. While I understand the idea behind FA stars in the list of current parks, it is not something I have seen anywhere else in article space (except some interlanguage wikilinks). The table is about the parks, not their articles. Just my two cents. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem with the stars. I'll take them out now. I will try to hects. too. Dincher (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I had started the converts, but however you're doing it is a lot faster than I can do it. They're all yours if you want them. Dincher (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I just did through C to see how they looked - if they look OK I will do the rest. Sorry for any edit conflicts Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
They look good. Have fun! Dincher (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
They are done - if you would look the list over to make sure they look OK, I would appreciate it, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
They look good to me. Did you do each of them manually or did you run them through some sort of spiffy program? Dincher (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I did them all manually, but since hectares and square km are metric, it was just a matter of moving the decinal point, adding a comma if needed, and replacing km2 with ha. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool. The changes need to be made in the text too. Dincher (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I searched for km2 and found them in the text and several in the list too - lake areas. Should we archive the talk page here? It is getting pretty big Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this should be archived. I am going to give it a try right now. Dincher (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Pennsylvania_state_parks/archive&oldid=1078753554"