Template talk:Protected areas of Washington (state)

Large

This is a pretty huge info box, bigger than some of the articles it is used at. I think collapsible sections should be considered, similar to Template:Railway lines in New South Wales. --Duk 17:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see it has a hide button, can this be the default? --Duk 17:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree, this is huge and dominates articles that incorporate it. A navbox should be less intrusive. Brianhe 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've only noticed the "hide" coming up when there's another navbox on the page. If someone knows how to default it, go for it, I don't. I like the collapsible idea too, but don't know how to do it. Murderbike 17:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, here it is - from Template:Navbox generic, state = collapsed. --Duk 18:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

National Natural Landmarks

I think that Washington's National Natural Landmarks should be listed here. These are a bit unusual in that they may not be considered protected in the same sense as the others in this list; the landmarks can include private lands that can be unilaterally de-listed and altered (according to National Natural Landmark). So I thought I'd bring it up for discussion here before adding a section. Brianhe (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there similar precedents in other Protected Area state templates? Myasuda (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of this status, but the only thing that makes me cautious of it, is the incredible largeness of this template. But I suppose if it's hidden it doesn't really matter, and what would matter, is if this status actually makes the sites "protected". Murderbike (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer that a subset of the Natural Landmarks be thrown in the template's "Other" category rather than have it be a separate section under the template. Rationale: some are already listed (e.g. Gingko Petrified Forest is under state parks and Nisqually Delta falls under the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge), and others don't really seem appropriate (e.g. the Wallula Gap doesn't seem to have anything akin to protection associated to it). Myasuda (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with both comments above. I think Mima mounds should be placed in the Other category and will do it. The others I'm not so sure about. Brianhe (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Washington

This template has been added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington by me using AWB because it is in category:Washington (U.S. state) templates if you believe this to be an error just revert my addition, or you can ask me at my talk page or the WikiProject Washington Talk Page, and check that this template is not in or remove it from the Washington (U.S. state) templates category --Gold Man60 Talk

Inclusion of The Enchantments?

Hello. Earlier tonight I added a link to The Enchantments along with the Alpine Lakes link in the National Wilderness section. Myasuda just reversed my edit, saying, "template contains a listing of wilderness areas; not details about them." I see the point. However, I included The Enchantments not primarily to add detail about the Alpine Lakes Wilderness but because the Enchantments are themselves a legally-defined zone within the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. The area is subject to additional protections above and beyond those typical for a wilderness area. Additionally, the area is one of the most popular backcountry destinations in the Northwest (especially outside the national parks), and would be one of the most crowded if not for strict limits on carrying capacity for campers.

My thought, then, is that it might be worthwhile having a link to The Enchantments somewhere in the navigation box. I suppose it could go in the "Other" category, but since it is entirely contained within the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, I decided to put it there. Does anyone have any thoughts on where to put such a link, or whether it belongs at all? Myasuda, is there any chance that (given my explanation), my initial placement might make sense? Thanks all, W.stanovsky (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you identify other areas in the country that have received similar "additional protections above and beyond those typical for a wilderness area" and detail what these protections are? I'd be interested to see how these other areas are handled in wikipedia. — Myasuda (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as the specific protections in question, you'll find a good deal about that at The Enchantments, appropriately referenced to the Web site of the USFS ranger district in question. There are other restrictions as well (no fires, human waste must either be packed out or deposited in established pit toilets [not buried], no pets or pack animals) that I haven't had time to add to the page and reference yet (I just started working on it today). Each of those restrictions exceeds minimums for wilderness, though one or two are occasionally enforced in other areas I've been to. The area is also more heavily protected in that there was apparently at least one NEPA decision specific to hiking traffic there, which is referenced obliquely on the ranger district Web site but which I don't see the point in tracking down.

I'm sure there must be other parts of wilderness areas somewhere that are similarly regulated, but I've never seen that level of protection outside certain areas of the national parks. I know Wonderland Trail in Mount Rainier National Park is similarly restricted. In fact, Mount Rainier Wilderness appears to lie entirely within the park and to exist solely for the purpose of enforcing traffic-related protections in the vicinity of Wonderland and other park trails. So the separate inclusion of both the Rainier park and Rainier wilderness in the nav box reflects not unique geographic areas, but unique legal constructs comprising some or all of the same areas. That strikes me as being pretty analogous to the Alpine Lakes / Enchantments scenario, except that the Enchantments "zone" system isn't a part of a broader national category that I'm aware of.

And just at a practical level, The Enchantments are likely to attract a lot more information-seekers than most of Washington's wilderness and national forest areas, so for the sake of providing a helpful information source it seems to me like we ought to get the place added somewhere in the box. I hope I've made my case for its inclusion; as far as whether or not it goes in the "wilderness" section, I could probably see it either way, though I still like it where I first put it. W.stanovsky (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll defer to other editors on this. I understand your rationale, and my reluctance is mainly due to the precedent setting nature of the edit (considering all Protected Areas templates -- not just this one). You're right though, in that not all listings in the template are disjoint. Other examples include Olympic Wilderness and Stephen Mather Wilderness. If no one else has an objection, go ahead and restore your edit. — Myasuda (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at the templates for several other states (Oregon, California, Colorado, Montana, Georgia). As I've thought about it, I think your instinct that The Enchantments doesn't belong in the wilderness section probably makes sense since that category has such a specific meaning. The best analog I've found for the situation is Cape Perpetua in Oregon, which is a differently designated area within Siuslaw National Forest. On the Template:Protected Areas of Oregon nav box, they've got Cape Perpetua linked in Federal>Other Protected Areas. Given that precedent and the fact that the Enchantments isn't a designated wilderness area unto itself, I'm going to go ahead and put the link in the Other section of the Washington nav box unless someone dissents withint the next few days.W.stanovsky (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. W.stanovsky (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Updated list of state parks

I'm using the list at the Washington State Parks site to update the parks listed in this nav box. A bunch of the redlinks on there no longer appear on the parks web page, though the ones I've checked so far do appear in a 20-year-old DeLorme road atlas of the state that I have. I'm thinking they've probably been closed or maybe combined or changed ownership since the list here was compiled. I'm going to remove the redlinks that are also not listed parks.wa.gov, but I'll list them here for posterity. W.stanovsky (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are the links I removed. First, the ones that did show up in my old atlas:

• Central Ferry State Park
• Chief Timothy State Park
• Crow Butte State Park See below for link to information if you want to make a stub.
• Doe Island Marine State Park
• Lake Cushman State Park transferred to private operation. See below for link to information if you want to make a stub.
• Lyons Ferry State Park (moved to Lyons Ferry Park and placed the link in "former state parks" in nav box)
• Mukilteo State Park (moved to Mukilteo Lighthouse Park and placed the link in the "former state parks" section of the nav box)
• Old Fort Townsend State Park Name changed to Fort Townsend State Park
• Saddlebag Island State Park
• Stretch Point State Park see below
• Summer Falls State Park See below for information if you want to make a stub
• Westhaven State Park

And now the ones that DIDN'T show up in my atlas, and I have no idea what has become of them:

• Cone Islands State Park
• Crystal Falls State Park
• Deep Lake State Park
• Dungeness Marine State Park
• Green River Gorge State Park
• Hanging Gardens State Park
• Harvey Rensland State Park
• Hoko River State Park
• Hoodsport Trail State Park
• Iceberg Island State Park
• Keystone Spit State Park
• Loomis Lake State Park
• Obstruction Pass State Park
• Senapum State Park
• West Hylebos State Park

And one curious one: Skull Island State Park, for which there is a stub, but no record of it on the Washington parks site. I didn't remove it from the list. I'm thinking that most of the parks listed above probably either changed names (I added quite a few new names), as I suspect happened with Old Fort Townsend (removed) and Fort Townsend (added), or changed owners as happened with Mukilteo State Park, which was deeded to the City of Mukilteo and renamed Mukilteo Lighthouse Park, or possibly combined with other parks or shut down. If anyone knows specifically as regards Skull Island, it would be good to know. W.stanovsky (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Missed removing Matilda Jackson State Park before. Just did it. W.stanovsky (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the WA parks page for Jarrell Cove State Park, Harstine Island State Park (not listed here) and Stretch Point State Park (removed to the first list in this section) are "satellite parks" of Jarrell Cove, so I added them back into the template as pipes to Jarrell Cove State Park. W.stanovsky (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have time and inclination, I'm figuring out what happened to these parks and I hope eventually to make stubs for those that don't have them, or for their successor parks. I have a subpage where I'm storing links at former Washington state parks. I'll strike through the names above as I track them down. W.stanovsky (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Creating stubs for State Parks redlinks

I put together some generic text and other information for the creation of state parks stubs where there are currently redlinks, if anyone wants to help in creating. See my post at the talk page on WikiProject Washington if you'd like to help. W.stanovsky (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

New subgroup for former state parks

In recent years, Washington State has transferred ownership of a number of state parks to counties and cities under condition that they remain protected. Accordingly, I created a new subgroup for these within the "other" group and moved Mukilteo Lighthouse Park and Wenberg County Park into it. I'm pretty sure there are others, and I'll try and find them when I can. W.stanovsky (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)