Template talk:Protected Areas of Washington
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
