Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas/Archive 5

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

Coordinates addition

I'd like to add some geo-coordinate data to articles currently missing them (primarily nature reserves in various countries), but am unsure as to where to select as the "spot" for the coordinates, as some of these have areas of dozens or hundreds of square kilometers/miles. Any suggestions would be appreciated! MeegsC | Talk 20:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest in this case that the main entrance or visitor's center (if present) would be the most logical location to list. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 19:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 14:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Coordinates and PA infobox

I've noticed most articles have the coordinates in the title bar, so I don't bother to add them into the infobox. It seems redundant. Do we even need the coding in the box for them anymore? Or should I add the numbers anyway? Cheers Marcia Wright (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

FAR of Mount Rushmore

I have nominated Mount Rushmore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Kaziranga National Park

I have nominated Kaziranga National Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

River Raisin

The National Park Service has linked to Wikipedia in their press release on River Raisin National Battlefield Park. See here: NPS. If someone knows more on that site, please contribute. Nationalparks (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

IUCN Category for National Forests

Hello, I'm not sure if all National Forests of the United Stated should have IUCN Category VI in general. The only reliable source for IUCN-Categorization seems to be the World Data Base On Protected Areas which has now moved to protectedplanet.net. A lot of National Forests are not within this database (f.e. Shoshone National Forest). Those that are have Category Ib (2) or V (77). The source for this database seems to be the Protected Areas Database of the United States of America (PADUS), which maps GAP status codes to IUCN definitions. So there is GAP Status 1 which maps to IUCN Ib, GAP Status 2 which maps to IUCN V and GAP Status 3 (for the majority of all United States National Forest) which is not applicable for an IUCN-Category. From PADUS you can also download a csv-list, where GAP Status for all forests of the US Forest Service is listed (this list I've packed temporarily to my website). I think the IUCN Categories for National Forests should now be revised.-- Sinuhe20 (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

IUCN Category for Protected Areas

It should be considered that f.e. not all protected areas of the United States have an IUCN Category.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox template update

Anyone interested in {{Infobox protected area}} should read The version in the sanbox is ready to go active on the template talk page. –droll [chat] 00:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, now all protected areas without an official iucn category can be corrected.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Many UK SSSIs pages requiring attention.

Hello, there appears to be a very large number of SSSI pages for the UK on Wikipedia. I have put together a list of them, here: MarcusBritish/SSSIs, adapted from this List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest by Area of Search. There were a lot of layout differences between the articles, which I have tweaked to make them all relatively uniform in appearance - wikitables, proper wikitable headers, etc. I have replaced the checkY icons with Green tickY in all of them so that they all have the same size ticks - which looks more compact and neater, imo. The table on my user page highlights which pages are complete, and that they adopt a uniform layout for 4 points:

  • wikitable format (as opposed to a plain list) with correct headers (by using ! not | for header row)
  • split-up into A–Z sub-heading tables for very long tables (makes easier reading)
  • The small Green tickY size tick used throughout
  • Maps need to be linked correctly to www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk which appears to have changed recently from www.naturalengland.org.uk and left a lot of pages being redirected to the same page.

Other small things I have made uniform include using & (amp) or – (ndash) between Grid refs rather than the words "and" or "to", and have allowed the map links to auto-generate their own link number in case of new SSSIs being entered in future, it makes for easier updating. Someone having to renumber all the links for one new SSSI entry might not otherwise feel inclined to bother. USe of the "" also seems appropriate, in most cases; most of the articles already had this I have continued the trend.

There is also the need to link Citations. Some articles opt to list these in the Notes, whilst some use an extra column in the table, after Map. Either practice seems okay, as long as it makes sense what they are and where they link to on www.english-nature.org.uk.

Anyone who is interested in the SSSI pages may want to look through the incomplete pages noted on my user page, linked above, and consider helping to get more data in place. I'm aware that it is a lot of hard work - I completed the North Yorkshire SSSI list myself, recently, converting it from a list to table format, and it took a fair few days - thank heavens for Regex to speed things along (hint-hint).

I believe with a bit of work, there is potential for a lot more Feature Lists to be created from these articles, for this WikiProject. I have noted, in the table, which of the SSSI articles are already FLs.

Regards, Ma®©usBritish (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You might wish to add a link to this from Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas/Status. --Elekhh (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Done, thank you! Ma®©usBritish (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Assessment

I think it would be very useful to set up for this WikiProject an assessment system as well, as now we passed 7,000 articles. As there already has been constant support for this in 2007, 2008 and 2009, I am planning to proceed with it, unless any objections are raised. Encouragement and help would be welcome :) Will follow instructions at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot and will set up a subpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas/Assessment. --Elekhh (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's up and running, all what's needed now is to make use of it. --Elekhh (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to make a request for DodoBot bot to import quality ratings for the already tagged articles. Also I think it would be useful to let it tag all yet untagged articles in the core category National parks. Please indicate your support or concerns. --Elekhh (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Have started using the assessment system. Nice work. Thanks! With respect to importing quality ratings, I wonder how this works. I suppose a bot might auto-assess stub-class articles based on article size, but how does this work for other assessment values higher up the chain? -- Arjuno (talk 15:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Most WikiProjects use the same quality rating definitions, so if an article has been already assessed by another WikiProject (for instance one dedicated for a particular country) than the bot would simply copy that over for that article to our WikiProject. I believe it will leave behind a tag so that is clear that it was assessed through bot, and needs human verification, but the result would be closer to correct than the current "quality unknown". --Elekhh (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining how this works. I'm fine with importing quality ratings this way, since human verification can correct assessments where needed. Cheers! -- Arjuno (talk 18:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
This is running now. Apologies for the delay, I'm on holiday so haven't been checking Wikipedia much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdoDodo (talk • contribs) 22 July 2011
Excellent work! Now we have 89% of articles quality assessed, up from 12% two days ago. That gives us an idea of where the project is currently: only 1% of articles are GA or featured (compared to 0.5% Wikipedia wide) and 60% are stubs (compared to 55% Wikipedia wide). --Elekhh (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Popular articles

There is a tool which can produce a monthly list of top most viewed pages for articles which fall in the scope of a WikiProject. I believe it would be very useful to help establish article improvement priorities. An example of how this would look like is here. Please indicate your interest/support for this tool to be set up for WikiProject Protected areas, so that we can make a formal request. --Elekhh (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. We seems to be getting tools faster than we gain project members so hopefully something can keep the interest level up. Rmhermen (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Useful indeed. In favor. -- Arjuno (talk 15:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems that the request has been approved, but it will take one month until the first results are published. Also good news that interest is up already, with four users joining in the last three weeks! --Elekhh (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently count only started for September, so the first monthly list will appear on 1st October at Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas/Popular pages. until than partial data can be found here. --Elekhh (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Portal?

Maybe is time for a Portal? With 30 FAs, 15 FLs and 32 GAs there is sufficient quality content to sustain it. Portal:Environment could be a model, and there are portals on similar topics on the French Wiki and German Wiki. --Elekhh (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Using location maps

I want to start updating the map display in articles about areas in the US that use {{Infobox protected area}}. Initially this will only include articles which have coordinates in the infobox and superimpose a mark on US Locator Blank.svg. This will effect hundreds of articles. There are three location map templates I'm considering and I would like some input about which one to use. 

{|
! Current map
! {{tl|Location map USA3}}
! {{tl|Location map USA2}}
! {{tl|Location map USA relief}}
|-
|{{Superimpose
| base = US_Locator_Blank.svg
| base_width = x149px
| x = 58
| y = 75
| float = Red pog.svg
| float_width = 8px }}
|{{Location map | USA3
| caption = 
| lat = 36.998976
| long = -109.045172 }}
|{{Location map | USA2
| caption = 
| lat = 36.998976
| long = -109.045172 }}
|{{Location map | USA relief
| caption = 
| lat = 36.998976
| long = -109.045172 }}
|}

I created USA3 to use the same color scheme as the image currently used, while the USA2 template uses the standard color scheme, I like the relief map but I don't know how others feel. –droll [chat] 06:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I also prefer the relief map and have been using those for other countries when available. I find it more relevant for PAs to have information about the altitude/topography than the administrative subdivision. --Elekhh (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the relief map is definitely the most useful and appropriate for PAs. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

New cleanup listing

A new cleanup listing has been set up, as WolterBot which was maintaining the old one is down since March 2010. Currently 30.1% of articles are marked for cleanup, with the biggest chunks needing coordinates (1029 articles) and sources (519+264). --Elekhh (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

EPA images among the donation from NARA

The US National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has donated over 100.000 photographs and documents from their archives to Wikimedia Commons. So far about 15% have been uploaded including 3,000 images from the Environmental Protection Agency. There are certainly many useful images among them to illustrate PA articles. --Elekhh (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the EPA images are among the worst described in the set. Many are missing locations in the description although a general area is sometimes found in the "Place" line towards the bottom. Many other photos including Ansel Adams' national park images and early survey trips to the Wild West were also uploaded so there is a lot good material in there. Rmhermen (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Protected areas to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 22:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Areas that are Non-Protected- Infoboxes

You guys probably have most experience in this field so here is an off-project. Areas such Breckland, Romney Marsh, Camargue, Causse de Sauveterre (not yet translated from French) fr:Causse de Sauveterre are all well defined areas but enjoy no protection. All need an Infobox- the question was which-one. I would like to bring across the French one- I can knock up a little translation tool to simplify the task- but what existing infobox would I use. Andy Mabbett suggests using Infobox settlement as it has the necessary re-definable fields to add facts such as bordering regions.(Discussions on my talk page) Has this discussion occurred before? Is anyone working on it? Suggestions? Advice?--ClemRutter (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall this ever being discussed. Infobox settlement is so complex it could probably replace half the box on Wikipedia and would be a good place to start. Rmhermen (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Jacupiranga State Park

I really need a photo, please!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Requested pictures but I am not certain how often that procedure is actually useful. Perhaps asking at WikiProject Brazil might help. Rmhermen (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Apparently File:Caverna do Diabo5.jpg is there. --Elekhh (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I've never had much luck with Wikipedia:Requested pictures. I get better results bugging folks at the projects. :) Cheers. Thank you. :) :)

 Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC on coordinates in highway articles

There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 01:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Geobox up for deletion

The Geobox template, which is used in 13 of 28 protected area FAs with some sort of "infobox" is up for deletion. You may be interested in commenting for or against its deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_3#Template:Geobox. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:IUCN banner

IUCN category IV (habitat/species management area)
IUCN category V (protected landscape/seascape)
IUCN category VI (protected area with sustainable use of natural resources)

There is a discussion about changes to {{IUCN banner}} on the template's talk page. As it is used by {{Infobox protected area}}, I think that a request for comment is appropriate. The current version and the proposed versions can be seen here. Capitalization is changed and the descriptions have been updated to agree with current IUCN documentation. –droll [chat] 23:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Lessons from Czech WikiProject Protected Areas

There is an interesting coverage of the Czech WikiProject Protected Areas in this week's Signpost. Maybe some lessons to be learnt? --ELEKHHT 02:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Grand Teton National Park

Peer review has been requested for Grand Teton National Park here...thanks...MONGO 15:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

New list of possible interest

Hello, Members of this WikiProject may find of interest the List of types of formally designated forests that I've started, with a major section on "Protection status". (It's not clear to me how to best tie it in with WP:Protect Areas project pages &tc.) Contributions, suggestions, cross-links welcome! Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Globalization Project Proposal

Hi Protected areas members, A few of us are trying to form a group that would work to take better care of articles about globalization and related topics. We'd sure love it if you could stop by and give us some feedback to help make our group a success. You can do that, or express your support for the project, at the Globalization Project Proposal. Thanks! LizFlash (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Grand Teton Natonal Park

Grand Teton National Park, a High-Importance article to this WikiProject, is now at Featured Article candidates at this link...--MONGO 14:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Globalization

The article Globalization has undergone major re-structuring. WikiProject Protected areas members are invited to review and comment on the article and add relevant missing information or sections in which your project may have an interest. Also, you may be interested in reviewing the updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Globalization proposal for a new WikiProject. Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggest upgrading BWCA article

Suggest upgrading Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness from mid to high importance. The largest USA wilderness area east of the Mississippi. North8000 (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm on the edge about this. As it currently stands, I would leave it as mid importance because, as you mention, it is "of considerable regional [national] significance." The best argument I have for raising it to high importance is that it is on an international border, although it is in only one country. An article on the combined protected area of all those sites in the boundary waters area (both US and Canada) would be of high importance. Further support for raising it to high is that I can potentially foresee it being at least nominated for inclusion as a World Heritage Site or Ramsar wetland, which would unequivocally raise it to high importance, but this is pure speculation. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for it I was just trying to be helpful. In that same vein, a few things that might be relevant...these are all from memory, I may be off on the numbers etc.

  • The largest USA wilderness area east of the Mississippi. About 1,000,000 acres roadless.
  • Large usage of the wilderness. I think ~250,000 people per year that were not in vehicles
  • I believe the largest-usage canoeing unit in the world, about 250,000 people per year
  • Prominent history in legislative battles etc.
  • Prominent in way-back recorded history, major trade route starting in the 1600's.
  • Prominent in writings, books. Focus of a disproportionate amount of the wilderness writers.
  • Half of the BWCA-Quetico wilderness area, about 2,000,000 acres roadless

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

help needed at Caucasus Nature Fund article

Caucasus Nature Fund is a new article, recently created and speedy-deleted, and recreated today. It seems under attack, and a new contributor who has so far received only negative interaction from Wikipedia editors, could use help. --doncram 14:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Templates updated

{{NPS area}} and {{NPS visitation}}, which generate links to data relevant to National Park Service areas have be rewritten and are now functional. –droll [chat] 19:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Nature park

I can't make any since if the definition in this article. Nor why what seems to be a European designation is illustrated by an American park. Or why the "first international" example claims in its article that it was planned as a national park, not a nature park. Or if French "Natural parks" are the same as "Nature parks". Rmhermen (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem with map location markers in some articles

The template {{Infobox protected area}} transcludes {{Infobox map}} which transcludes {{Superimpose}}. {{Superimpose}} has a problem. In the past it placed the upper left corner of the the superimposed image at the pixel coordinates supplied. This is no longer the case. The image is now displayed several pixels lower than expected. This means that Infoboxes that used the pixel_x and pixel_y parameters now have a problem. I am working my way through the affected articles, mostly about Canadian areas, using the x and y parameters or the {{Location map}} functionality. I'm assuming that the marker should be where it was before {{Superimpose}} developed a problem. It will probably take me a several more days to finish this task. I you notice anything wrong with my edits please leave a note on my talk page. –droll [chat] 22:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

National Natural Landmark Infobox discussion

This appears to be a WikiProject that could take "ownership" of National Natural Landmarks. I would like to start adding Infoboxes to the NNL articles and would like to discuss which template to use.

I moved and modified this template from the Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed page. Should have posted this query first, but I was anxious to get started.
Not sure if NNLs can be considered protected areas under this projects definition.

Thanks, --Bamyers99 (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

My personal preference is for the Geobox (I'm the editor who added it to Snyder Middleswarth Natural Area) as it seems to have the most flexibility, though I think the Infobox NNL is also fine. The Infobox PA is harder to judge as it does not show many of the points that the other two examples do (not sure if they are not available in the infobox or just not filled in for this example).
Another issue to be aware of is that NNLs will often overlap with other types of protected areas. So for example in Pennsylvania, there are several NNLs that are either part of a larger state park (the Boulder Field at Hickory Run State Park) or state forest (Snyder Middleswarth in Bald Eagle State Forest), OR in at least one case there are state parks which are part of a larger NNL (Colton Point State Park and Leonard Harrison State Park are both part of the Pine Creek Gorge NNL). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I think NNLs fall into one of three categories:
1. NNL is a feature within a protected area
2. NNL borders are largely the same as a protected area
3. NNL is not a part of a protected area
NNLs can be partly or exclusively on private land, so ones on private land likely are not in protected areas, but that doesn't mean they don't fit within the scope of this project. For #3 above, I think the infobox used should be the Infobox NNL because the other two deal with PAs, which this category is not. For #1 either the Infobox NNL or Geobox PA work, as long as you make note that it is a feature in a PA. For #2 I prefer the Infobox PA because I think it is slightly better formatted than the Geobox. Also I think the Geobox has too many fields for people who simply copy it and try to fill in all the fields with often unnecessary and ironically misleading details. The Infobx PA and NNL are essentially the same except for the titles. It would nice if someone could develop a Designation that can be embedded within the Infobox PA similar to NRHPs as in Chimney Rock National Monument. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for stating things so clearly! I might add a fourth case, that of NNLs which overlap with all or part of more than one protected area - so Pine Creek Gorge in Pennsylvania is a NNL and as such is a part of the larger Tioga State Forest, but also contains within it all of two smaller and separate protected areas (Colton Point and Leonard Harrison state parks). The wrinkle here is that all of Colton Point is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places, primarily for its CCC structures. I do not think the Colton Point article (which is a FA) needs two or three infoboxes, but the one Geobox used shows its status - primarily known as a state park, also listed on the NRHP, and part of a larger NNL. My caution is that I think more than one infobox in an article is almost always too much. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the one infobox limit, and I don't like embedding entire infoboxes within others as is common with NRHPs (which is why I like the two or three lines for a designation). The fourth category only adds to the confusion with competing designations. I don't think the choice between infobox NNL or the geobox is all that important in this case as long as all the designations are covered. NNLs have been ignored over most other designations as evidenced by the many missing articles in the NNL lists. Even among those many don't have any infobox. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems unproductive, to me, to categorize articles by using one infobox template rather than another. That is what categories are for. In that past a few users have changed the infobox used in an article because the land in question did not meet the criteria of one of the IUCN categories (e.g. state parks). I helped maintain {{Infobox protected area}} and {{Infobox park}} and other than the color of the header they are more or less interchangeable, as is Infobox NNL. In my humble opinion, they should be merged. I believe that this can be done with a few minor changes. For example the area name field of the protected area template could have a colored background if the area did not satisfy the criteria for one of the IUCN categories. I also want to note that ProtectedPlanetNet does not seem to meet the Wiki criteria for a reliable source since it is a social media site. The IUCN have stated that their database was corrupted and that users should refer to ProtectedPlanetNet. I think there needs to be a discussion about the significant of the IUCN categories. To be honest, I don't like Geobox.

I also agree that, as a general rule and when possible, there should only be one infobox per article. This can be accomplished, without using Geobox, by embedding one template in another. Most of the relevant templates need some work to make this work smoothly. –droll [chat] 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What is your basis for calling ProtectedPlanetNet a social media site? The About page indicates that it is the "new face of the World Database on Protected Areas". It accepts user data, but the original data from the WDPA database is still available. I use the protected area shapes for determining coordinates. Do you have a reference for the IUCN database corruption? --Bamyers99 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
[1] states that protectedplanet is a "communication tool, incorporating some of the best social media approaches, to generate new constituencies of interest and information for protected areas." I can't find a reference to support the corruption of the original database but I am certain that I read about on an IUCN page. When I get time I'll try to find a reference. –droll [chat] 21:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I've been doing a little casual research concerning Protectedplanet.net. I read that the IUCN solicits shape files for protected areas from governmental sources. So the shape files used by Protectedplanet.net are probably reliable. For areas in the U.S. the USGS National Gap Analysis Program maintains a database of protected areas known as The National Inventory of Protected Areas (PAD-US). A web interface is available here. If you drill down to a specific area and double click, a pop-up shows data about ownership, Gap status, IUCN category and acreage. See a comment I left at Talk:Cascade–Siskiyou National Monument. –droll [chat] 21:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Pinnacles National Park

Legislation to promote Pinnacles National Monument to national park status passed Congress on December 31, 2012, and awaits presidential signature. The article is a reasonably good start, but will get a lot of attention when the status changes, and could use sources and expansion. Acroterion (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability of Nature Reserves (UK based)

Hi. I've looked but I can't find anything very conclusive on whether there are any special notability criteria for nature reserve articles. I'm looking specifically at a bunch of articles created by a stub creator (love 'em...) such as Gunton Meadow - there are 50 odd more at the Suffolk Wildlife Trust article all done at the same time using some automated routine or other I think. In general a few of the reserves seem notable enough on the GNG scale so I'm fine with those. Some are SSSI - does that make them inherently notable? If there's any kind of standard ruling on this then I'd appreciate knowing about it. Others, such as the one I've listed, aren't at that level.

My gut feeling is that many of these seem to be non-notable but I'd really appreciate any response at all from here which could guide me in what to do with them. Ta Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think SSSIs are inherently more notable than those that are't because SSSI is the basic level of national protected area recognition within the UK. Do you think certain ones of the articles are lacking notability? Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

New designations

I have created new Designations that can be added to protected area infoboxes. I added one for Ramsar wetlands because our assessment guidelines consider them high importance protected area articles, but we previously had no way to distinguish them other than within the text. The National Natural Landmark designation was added to also distinguish NNLs as was discussed on this page above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

North Devon's Biosphere Reserve

A page I've recently written, North Devon's Biosphere Reserve, is up at good article nominations at the moment. It'd be great if it could be reviewed by someone who is knowledgeable about protected areas. Many thanks, Jack (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

List of protected areas established in XXXX

There is a request for approval for a bot that will automatically create an index list for each category in Category:Protected areas by year of establishment. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wildcat Glades Conservation in AfC needing help

The article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wildcat Glades Conservation and Audubon Center is in AfC but could be added to mainspace. However, the article is lacking references and could probably needs a little help. Thanks. LionMans Account (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Do not feed the animals

There is a discussion at Talk:Do not feed the animals#Article title which members of this project may be interested in. -- 202.124.89.1 (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello,
Please note that Nature reserve, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 00:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello,
Please note that National park, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 00:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

help to translate french article

Hello, I'd like to translate the french article fr:Réserve naturelle régionale de la carrière des Nerviens. I started on Regional Nature Reserve of the Quarry of Nerviens. I'm looking for someone who could help me. If you are willing, would you contact me, please. Thank you. Christian COGNEAUX (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Carrière des Nerviens Regional Nature Reserve

Hello, I translated the French article w:fr:Réserve naturelle régionale de la Carrière des Nerviens, whis is candidate to the status Article de qualité. Brenont has just made a complete review. Can I have your opinion on the Article Carrière des Nerviens Regional Nature Reserve. Do you think possible to ask a status GA, A or FA ? Thank you. Christian COGNEAUX (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested

The notability and sourcing of County Wildlife Site, an article that falls under the auspices of this project, is currently being discussed at Talk:County Wildlife Site - your input is requested. Thank-you. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 13:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Seeking help in improving Blue Ridge Parkway entry

Hi everyone. I am relatively new to Wikipedia but have an interest in improving articles on national parks and protected areas, starting with the one on Blue Ridge Parkway. I anticipate developing some edits for that page over the next few months, with special attention to history, notable controversies, specific highlights with more detail, management, and Parkway design. I would also like to further develop (with some short informational taglines) the external links list. I have the most knowledge of the history and controversies pieces, and probably the least of history and significance of Parkway design (though I know of sources). I also would like to look carefully at other starred Wikipedia articles on national park areas and try to identify other elements that would turn this into a top-quality article. Would others like to help me? Do others have ideas for sections, resources? Thanks in advance! --Amwhisnant (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)amwhisnant 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amwhisnant (talk • contribs) 19:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Rottumeroog is selected as article for improvement

The article Rottumeroog, which is also within the scope of this project, was selected by members of WikiProject Netherlands as the article for improvement in May 2014. Our (ambitious) goal is to improve the article to good article quality. You are invited to contribute to the article. – Editør (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Protected_areas/Archive_5&oldid=1137367776"