Jump to content

Talk:Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area

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

Merge proposal

[edit]

Proposal to merge Big South Fork of the Cumberland River into Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area: no reason given? Doesn't make sense to me as the river is not the recreation area and vice versa, even if closely related. Wouldn't it look odd to have a recreation area page in a list of Kentucky rivers, for example? Which infobox would be used, the river one or the protected area one? Pfly (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: the two articles should remain separate. One is about the river, and the other is a about a National Park Service site. I suppose the name Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area makes it sound like the NPS area includes just the river, but that's not the case. --Orlady (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against the merger, mainly for reasons already stated (one is a geological entity and one is a political entity). Standard practice seems to be to separate the two, for example Mount Hood and Mount Hood National Forest, Guadalupe Mountains and Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Everglades and Everglades National Park. Bms4880 (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]