Talk:National Park Service
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
To-do list for National Park Service: | edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
 |
|
 |
Contents |
[edit] Proper name
Moved this back from United States Park Service which is not a real name. Article title should be the actual name of the organization.Ark30inf 02:44, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
[edit] N.P. Service and N.P. System
I am considering reworking this piece, merging it with U.S. National Park (that would become a redirect). The distinction between the National Park Service (gov't agency) and National Park System (collection of properties managed by the agency) seems insufficient for two different articles.
My idea is to restructure this article into a portion for the agency, and a portion for system that it manages. No new content, just moving bits around. Any thoughts, pro or con?
—Eoghanacht 17:04, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
- I agree with your proposal, and I am re-proposing the changes you suggested. Hotstreets 04:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Disagree - This article deals more with administration and operations while the related article provides place-based historical perspective. Leave cross-linked without merging.
- geoWIZard-Passports 09:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re-Working and Merging
Over the holiday break I will start to re-work this article to make it more apporiate
Just a quick brainstorm, it will include 1.Structure of NPS(Regions) 2.History 3. Controversy 4. New National Parks 5. Link to a listing of all national parks 6. and some other smaller sections
- ... Was this supposed to happen in 2005? Brutannica 01:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Differences
What are the differences between national parks, national monuments, national historic sites, etc.? I always wondered -- I know national park is higher in status than national monument, but what's the qualifier? And I know of Tumacacori, which used to be a national monument but became a national historical park. And is there a difference between "historic site" and "historic park?" Brutannica 01:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Brutannica, this is the link you are looking for: http://www.nps.gov/legacy/nomenclature.html Nationalparks 13:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redirects
Redirecting "parkitecture" to this page makes little sense since "parkitecture" refers to the practice of building structures within national parks which are representations of the landscapes around them, not to the NPS itself. I can write up a "parkitecture" page but I am unsure how to un-redirect it. Starlady42
- Just go here and get rid of the redirect line. Then edit away. Good luck! Nationalparks 16:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy?
There are many books sold in most of the National Parks that "contradict science". You'll find them in the appropriately labeled inspiration section, or cultural history section. Why bring up this one item which is related to the discredited press release from that PEER group which apparently lied that the Park Service employees were told not to tell the age of the Grand Canyon? I'd suggest removing this entire section if that is the finest example of National Park Service controversy anyone can drag up. --207.154.79.131 11:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Who says that it contradicts modern science? There are many scientists who hold these views. By the way science is not determined by consensus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.107.197.156 (talk • contribs).
- However, Wikipedia is based on consensus. I think the whole section should be removed from this article. If anything, it belongs at Grand Canyon National Park or Grand Canyon, but not in this article for the whole Park Service. Nationalparks 21:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. This section is irrelevant to the article's scope.--Son of thunder 19:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I also agree. Snowmobiles, personal watercraft, the USPP chief, there are so many other controversies that this is a red herring. The whole section should go. If anybody really feels that strongly about this information being in Wikipedia, a whole other article could be created for just that topic if one really wanted to do due dilligence and include a representative sampling of "controversies" over the years in addition to this relative footnote.Shoreranger 02:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lots of Bold Words
Anyone know why so many internal links were in bold? I fixed them, but still am curious.
RebDrummer61alalala! [21:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)]
