This template is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry
Untitled
This is a good idea but, obviously, it could not be used in an actual page. What I suggest:
Separate templates for state parks (you might want to leave the PIPC-managed ones out of it) and state forests.
A separate template for the state Forest Preserve. The Adirondack and Catskill parks are not state parks per se ... people live in them and the state land within is managed by DEC, not the parks office. To classify them with the other state parks is misleading and inaccurate.
In fact, both parks could probably do with separate navboxes for their management areas. I'd find a way to work the gold-and-brown color scheme used for all the signage within the parks into the template.
Consider using blue and green (the DEC logo colors) for the state forest one as DEC is responsible for those lands too.
NY has very little in the way of federal protected areas, because we took the initiative as a state before the feds got into it. Only one template would be needed. Daniel Case20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that NY has unwieldy number of protected areas, and I was running through different ideas of how to make the navbox less intrusive in the pages. I was leaning towards the idea of having each type of protected area be collapsible within the navbox while still maintaining one single template. VerruckteDan22:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would work. It's still too big. We need separate navboxes (I've also noticed the wilderness areas in both the Adirondack and Catskill parks are missing entirely. And you have the wild forest units lumped in with the state forests ... very different categories of land. Daniel Case01:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've tried to clean it up, and incorporated some of my suggestions. For now, it's OK because there's not really enough articles to justify splitting the template up. But eventually we're going to want separate navboxes for the ADK and Catskill parks (they also have state campgrounds and administrative use areas that would count for inclusion) and I still think the forests and parks are numerous enough that, even with the hide feature, this template is still too big. (Considering New York has only one national forest, I don't see why that needs to be in omnibus either. We also ought to have one for federal protected areas, since those constitute a much smaller percentage of protected areas in NY). Daniel Case02:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I would like to suggest & request that someone with the knowledge to do so convert this template to one with collapsible sections. Clearly too big, as is. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Sparkgap! for the collapsible sections. Is it possible to collapse the collapsed sections, as well? Even better... And the many redlinked sites problem remains... But way better already, and addresses some of the concerns raised below by @Antepenultimate. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a great improvement! @DASonnenfeld, by "collapse the collapsed sections", do you mean so that it shows only the title bar, and none of the sub-bars? This seems to be the way it is shown when the template is set to "state=collapsed"; see for example Allan H. Treman State Marine Park (a short one, to minimize scrolling) which is 'autocollapsed' due to the presence of the 'Ithaca' navbox, but I think most pages I've seen this template added to have been hardcoded to 'collapsed' due to its size regardless (for example, Blauvelt State Park). The sub-bars are not shown until the main bar is expanded, and each groups contents aren't revealed until a sub-bar is individually expanded. Is that what you're hoping for? Antepenultimate (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely the template is large and unwieldy, and something should be done to reduce its size. The only issue I see with the current approach is that the template is now technically disqualified from use on individual state parks articles, as it fails WP:BIDIRECTIONAL(a guideline which I don't really agree with, but I have seen it enforced by bots in the past). To address this, here's a few undoubtedly half-baked solutions we could consider:
Create a separate navbox for just the state parks, and swap out this template with the new navbox. Downside: viewers of state parks articles are probably interested in a variety of public lands, not just this specific sort.
-- Not sure of the value of such a navbox. With the list article & categories, a navbox seems like overkill.
Edit this template to allow collapsible sections, and re-add the full template with the appropriate section expanded to each article. I'm not entirely sure how to do this, but looking at the code at {{Fishing tackle}} (which allows for collapsible sections), I think it could probably be done. The downside is that it would be a lot of work to alter each linked article to show the appropriate section, and I don't know what the appropriate display method would be for articles with multiple navboxes, where typically all are collapsed. (And I see now that you suggested the same solution a little over two years ago, above.)
-- This would be possible; again, not sure of the value with respect to state parks and historic sites.
Remove/listify sections in this template that are mostly redlinks (Nature Conservancy properties, State Wild Forests) rather than the largely blue State Parks, as has been done for Nature Centers and State Forests previously. Templates aren't supposed to have an abundance of redlinks anyhow (per WP:EXISTING, which to be fair is part of an essay, and not an official guideline), and this makes it easy to follow WP:BIDIRECTIONAL.
-- An excellent idea! Too many redlinks to really be useful, in my opinion.
Simply remove this template from individual state parks articles. This is really the only option here that I'm not a fan of.
-- This could be done, but I'm not sure it's necessary...
Anyway, those are my thoughts. Any of this worth exploring? (And sorry I seem to be the only other person interested in New York's public spaces here...) Antepenultimate (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A thought I had about the inclusion of State Parks in this template... I think they are appropriate here, despite the additional list article and the category. I think it just comes down to the different ways people explore topics here. I for one almost never think to check out Categories (though I know many do, and they are useful whenever I do remember the option), and list articles I think are best as an opportunity show some expanded information, not just a bald list of links to scroll through (and I am still working on the NYSP list, I swear!)... Navboxes provide a quick, compact way for a reader to move between related topics without having to click through to a separate page each time. It's my preferred method of aimless browsing, and really seeing redlinks in the navbox was what made me first realize that New York public space articles here could maybe benefit from a little attention. So really, just a personal preference thing, but I don't think I'm alone. Antepenultimate (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The recent edit to convert this template to collapsible sections re-introduced the State Forests, which is a long list of almost exclusively redlinks. This may not be a problem now that the section would need to be intentionally expanded for view, and I am one that believes redlinks can inspire article creation (though I wouldn't hold my breath for most State Forests in NY). I would still have no problem having sections comprised primarily of redlinks be made to point to a separate list article for each type... perhaps the 'Other' section could just include links to List of New York state forests, List of Nature Conservancy properties in New York, List of nature centers in New York, and List of New York State Wild Forests? (The two 'Forest Preserves' could probably become a sub-group under "State Forests".) Obviously some of those lists would need to be created first. Just my thoughts... Antepenultimate (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize there was so much active discussion here before I made my last edit; I'm used to Templates being devoid of talk. Anyway, I re-added the state forests when I noticed that in the history, they were removed for similar reasons as state parks. I'm generally in favor of protected area navboxes have a complete list of known federal and state areas, even if there are not articles at this time. It lets those searching know that such places exist, Wikipedia is aware of them, but there's a lack of material on Wikipedia at this time. It might encourage one to stub the red-links just to get an article started; I've done this in other navboxes. However, I do see the concern over how many state forests lack articles. I know nothing about New York State Forests, so are there any editors who do? Perhaps a team could be formed to start filling in this hole? :)
Apologies if no one is watching this page anymore. I do see what you're saying and I agree in theory that state-managed areas are notable enough. I wonder if enough people are willing to take part in starting 300+ articles, though. I certainly could try my best with them, though it would take years for me to do alone, and I don't know much about New York's park system. Maybe start a discussion about this in WikiProject New York or WikiProject Protected areas? --Molandfreak(talk,contribs,email)22:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose removing all redlinks under the 'State forests' major heading, leaving links only to those articles for which there currently are articles. Any objections? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First off, nice job re-organizing the "Forest Preserve" and "Wild Forest" items under a united tab the other day, that really helps streamline this template.In answer to your question, I think I'd prefer if all were removed and replaced with a link to the "list" article for the state forests, like was done for the nature centers; I think leaving behind only those forests with articles misrepresents the total scope of state forests within NY. One reason I undertook re-doing the List of New York state forests article was so that could possibly be done here without feeling like we were directing readers to a sub-standard resource. However, there's no equivalent list for the Wild Forests (though I suppose there could be). Another entire group is currently unrepresented (New York State Wildlife Management Areas) and I intend to create a list article for them soon as well (far fewer in number than State Forests, and a surprising number already have articles). When that happens, I wouldn't want to dump a bunch of new redlinks here - but having a link to the list article would make sense.One other thing I'd like to propose is separating out New York State Unique Areas from the State Forests - though they are technically State Forests (due to being managed by the same DEC division), the management goals and general public engagement is much different, and I'm intending to make articles for those UAs currently lacking one (just completed Labrador Hollow Unique Area this morning - such an excellent place, and I'm guessing you've been there, DA?). Just some thoughts before heading out today... Antepenultimate (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've created List of New York wild forests, so both the "Wild Forests" and "State Forests" sections could be replaced with their respective list articles, which I'm personally in favor of. I'll wait at least until that list gets patrolled before making the replacement, or of course if there are any strong objections raised here first. In the meantime, I've updated the WF section here in case anyone decides to revert back to the original listings later on... Antepenultimate (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I went ahead and did it. Anyone is welcome to revert or modify as needed; the lists within the template were complete and up-to-date just prior to my change. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it would be appropriate to include the List of National Natural Landmarks in New York under 'Lists'? According to the National Natural Landmark article, designation "encourages the conservation of outstanding examples of the natural history" however does not actually impose development restrictions or any other limitations upon landowners (public or private); nevertheless, most of the listed properties are under some sort of protection. Thoughts? Antepenultimate (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good question! My reaction is "sure, why not?" In extremis, the danger is one of including every sort of designated place, whether protected or not... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, thanks for adding it. The re-arrangement to allow for 'other' private preserves is great too, and it will be fun to try to find additional articles for private NY preserves that are out there. It feels good to be able to bring them "into the fold", such as it were. Thanks! Antepenultimate (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
