Template talk:Protected areas of California

	Protected areas Template‑class
This template is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

California Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I'd like to add Snow Mountain Wilderness to the Protected Areas of California template. What section should I put it in? It's a wilderness area that's in Mendocino National Forest and it's administered by the U.S. Forest Service. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thankyou to the editor that changed the default setting to "hide". I was removing it from articles as it made working impossible (I have put them all back in). I still think it is too large but cannot think of a better solution other than breaking it up into parts-a box for just national monuments, etc. Again, thanks! Marcia Wright (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that this be broken into sections. Perhaps "National Forests" have their own template, "National Parks" have another, etc. This template is just far too big. I was looking for a template like this to put on Woodland Opera House (which this template now links to because I created a redirect), but in its current state I refuse to put it on there. Its information overload to the casual reader. I'll be cross posting this on a couple Wikiproject pages, to try to get more input (in case this page isn't watched). Killiondude (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the template has grown too large; we should decommission it over time. There are already separate templates for Template:National Protected Areas of California and Template:State Protected Areas of California which are a step in the right direction. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest even both of those templates (while a step in the right direction) are a bit overloaded too. In my opinion :-) It would be nice to have something that doesn't add a whole one or two screen lengths to the page when you click "show". Killiondude (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and forked one section of this template to Template:UC Natural Reserve System. So I removed that section from this template. I plan on doing more of this to decrease the size of this template. I just lopped one of the easier sections for tonight. I'll do the harder parts later. I feel like it would be easier and more beneficial to the casual reader. I saw that this UC Reserve section was in Template:State Protected Areas of California so I removed it from there as well. Killiondude (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only was the original template too large, the default setting was Show ! I'd have to remove it just to work on the article. I broke it out into the two general categories of state and national, but you're right, they are still too big and cumbersome, at least the National template is. How many new templates are you thinking of, and would they be according to the present sections, e.g. National Wilderness Preservation System, National Marine Sanctuaries, and so on? The national template now has 7 sections, two of which are very small. I'd be interested in knowing your "plan of action" as it were. Also, you'll notice I kept the original template there. If these new smaller templates are created, should the original ones be deleted?Marcia Wright (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so MZMcBride recommended a new course of action for this template. See what I've done via User:Killiondude/template test. I'm not done reworking the template, I'll probably finish it this weekend. So now we have all the same info in one box still, but users can show and hide whatever they'd like to see. Best of both worlds. Killiondude (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very cool -- thanks. One thing bugs me, however, is that the headings need to be clearer, since users might not know to find State Beaches under State Parks. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YES Thank you Killiondude-we appreciate your effort. My only small concern is the size of the template at page bottom, but thats nitpicky, doesn't matter. Again thanks Marcia Wright (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepheng3: I thought of that too, but as of last night I just used the same titles that the original template had used. Do you have any suggestions on changing the title? I thought readers might peruse each drop down box, and see the subsection in bold and that might be how they find "State Beaches" for example. But we can discuss it and stuff.

@Marcia: Are you talking about the section that says "Heritage Registers"? Again, I just copied that off the regular template. We can change things up if that's the consensus. Killiondude (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "State Parks, including State Reserves, Historic Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Areas" ? --Stepheng3 (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "State Parks, Reserves, Historic Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Areas"? I like the way this is going. - PKM (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Okay. I'm officially done with the coding and stuff. It took me a long time to do all this since its my first time working with templates this extensively. Anyways, feel free to take a look at the template (User:Killiondude/template test) and give any constructive criticism as far as the coding/layout part. Next we can discuss titles if you'd like, but first see the section titled "Parameters" on the test page. An example of using {{User:Killiondude/template test|NPS}} is found on User:Killiondude/Sandbox. Just drop-down the main box, and the National Park System subsection is already opened. So all the articles liked under the National Park System could have {{User:Killiondude/template test|NPS}}, and when a user goes to look for other parks in this system in California, it'll be right there for them when they open the template up. They could also browse thru the other subsections of protected areas in California too (the desired outcome of the template). :-)

This might eliminate the need to retitle things, as the specific subsection will be open for users once the open the template itself. What do you guys think? Killiondude (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to copy my coding over, replacing this template soon (maybe tomorrow)... since there's been no discussion in over 4 days. Things can be tweaked here (titles) if that's what you guys want. Killiondude (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great update to the template! You might want to promote this format as a standard at Category talk:Protected areas templates. Your improvement deserves a larger audience than just this template. — Myasuda (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment and the idea. I'll post something over at WT:WikiProject Protected areas since that falls under them. Killiondude (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary subsection

The thread above was getting to be an eyesore, so I'll just start this subsection. Using AWB I just replaced all the other templates that were broken off from this major one, with this one. I started going through and checking articles to see if they have the new parameters, using a list compiled from AWB of articles that transclude this template now. I didn't get nearly all the way through, and saved the remaining work in a supage of mine titled Articles needing parameters. Its a bit of a misnomer though, because there are probably several pages in there that have a parameter attached already. Any help in this endeavor would be appreciated. Killiondude (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, another update. Mikaey (talk · contribs) was kind enough to create a hidden category for this template, so any instance of it that doesn't have a parameter appended will show up in this category. It can be found at Category:Protected Areas of California articles without parameters. This category kind of outdates my subpage. It has a lot more pages because last night I started going through with AutoWikiBrowser and adding this template to all the pages it links to (I'm not done, however. I think I have like 500 more pages to look through). For right now all the parameters have to be added by hand, unless it is found that a bot can do it via adding the same parameter for all the instances in a certain category. I don't know if that'll work though, because 1) I don't know if there's categories for this situation (I haven't looked) and 2) A lot of these pages aren't categorized correctly, and we'd miss a lot of pages if a bot did a run-through. Please let me know if you don't understand what I'm saying, and I'll try to explain it better. Collaboration on this would be great. Killiondude (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out how to use AWB to clean out the category of pages that have no parameter attached to this template. As of right now, the only work that needs to be done with this template is to fix all the red links. Many of the redlinks actually have pages of the same topic, just under a different title. If you find such an instance, please change the link in the template to point towards the actual page (you can leave the title the same, pipping it if necessary. Killiondude (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A new reserve has been added to the UC Natural Reserve System by a vote of the UC Regents as of July 14, 2011.

The Steele Burnand Anza-Borrego Desert Research Center is managed by UC Irvine. It covers an area of 2,477 hectares/615,000 acres, which largely consists of adjacent Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. This acreage listing is authorized by agreement with Anza-Borrego Desert State Park.

The web page of the new reserve is here: http://nrs.ucop.edu/reserves/anza-borrego/anza-borrego.htm

The headquarters of the reserve are located in a former country club at the outskirts of the town of Borrego Springs. The latitude and longitude of Borrego Springs is 33 degrees 15' 26" N / 116 degrees 22' 20" W

Note should probably point out that an agreement with Anza-Borrego Desert State Park and the Anza-Borrego Foundation makes the park available to reserve users.

The addition of the Steele Burnand Anza-Borrego Desert Research Center means that the UC Natural Reserve System as a whole now consists of 37 sites that include more than 750,000 acres.

Reference sources: a UC Irvine press release about the new reserve; the date reflects when UC Irvine closed escrow on the property, but not when the UC Regents voted to approve the new reserve http://www.today.uci.edu/news/2011/05/nr_desert_110512.html

A Los Angeles Times article about the new reserve http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/12/local/la-me-0512-borrego-springs-20110510

The action of the UC Regents that approved the addition of the new reserve to the UC Natural Reserve System: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/aar/aar.html download the pdf under July 2011 / Committee on Educational Policy

128.48.6.189 (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a redlink to this navbox template. Perhaps you'd care to create an article to satisfy the redlink? Contact me on my talkpage if you would like help with this. —Stepheng3 (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under the National Park System header, there are several National Monuments that are not actually controlled by the National Park Service, but rather the Bureau of Land Management and/or United States Forest Service. These include:

• Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument

and

• Fort Ord

It is misleading to say that they are units of the National Park Service.

--Bentendo24 (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering creating an article for and including the Mill Creek Redwood Preserve in this template, but the preserve is a unit of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District. I thought I'd check here to see if it's appropriate to add a county-level category to this template, but this is already a long template. Is there another existing template that might be more appropriate? — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 22:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2604:2000:E8C1:2700:F195:B124:5AD5:17C5 (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall angel island was carried out due to the fact the chinese exculi

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 04:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen other states' protected areas templates contain private non-profits, so I've added that section here and including a list of examples. Please feel welcome to add more as you find them!

Rosenbergwrite (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]