Talk:National Trails System

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It has been suggested that National Recreation Trail, National Scenic Trail, National Historic Trail and National Trails System Act be merged into this article.

Close: No support for Merge. This proposal has been here since March. I'm concluding there is no support for merging these articles. -- Patleahy 16:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The NRT is a specific designation within the national trails system that is important to designate in a category. The nesting here is implicitly necessary to making accessible. – Freechild (BoomCha) 00:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge National Trails System Act, Keep Others: The only thing significant about the act is that it created the system so put it in the same article, with a redirect. Keep the others, they are about there different types of trails. -- Patleahy 02:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge from National Trails System Act

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Close: Merge: Since the only other person who expressed an opinion about the merges above supports this merge I am concluding it is uncontroversial and going ahead with it. -- Patleahy 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm opening a discussion on merging just National Trails System Act into this article. I believe this proposal was lost in the previous multiple proposals.

Support (as nominator): The only thing significant about the act is that it created the system so put it in the same article. -- Patleahy 18:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Support: Great way to consolidate articles that don't need to exist without each other. These two are meant to be together. – Freechild (BoomCha) 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UK National Trails and U.S. National Trails System

I have proposed renaming this article. Please see Talk:National Trails#UK National Trails and U.S. National Trails System. Please add your opinions there rather than here so that the conversation happens in one place. Thanks -- PatLeahy (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

graphic

Why is the graphic of the sign so dark on the main page, but the graphic that this links to is not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.223.58 (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Trails System. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150405102111/http://usparks.about.com/library/weekly/aa060599.htm to http://usparks.about.com/library/weekly/aa060599.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061009150359/http://www.octa-trails.org/learning_center/trail_facts.html to http://www.octa-trails.org/learning_center/trail_facts.html

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) 09:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Add indication of trail usage

I suggest adding an indication for every individual trail listed in this article (as well as other trail related articles) if the trail is a walking / bike / horse / ski / whitewater / combined trail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.16.89.223 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Chisolm Trail

Not really sure if the Chisolm Trail has actually been formally added to the NTS but was reluctant to delete it with definite knowledge; obviously references need to be added and length if it actually has been. It needed to be formatted properly if it were going to be left and I have done that as best I could. 2600:1004:B15C:351B:4C8B:75CE:F1EB:8234 (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Can't find anything about it, removed. Reywas92^Talk 04:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Combining name and image columns

@Rewas92: I agree that combining these columns is technically unnecessary, I maintain that combining them is an improvement as the width of the combined column is less than the combined width of the two columns, thus allowing the large description column to take up more width but less height, reducing the overall height of the entire table. As the image column is unsortable, no functionality is lost. Please reconsider your reversion. Other editors are of course welcome to chime in. YBG (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Reyeas92: oops YBG (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Reywas92: oops again YBG (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Reywas92: Thoughts? YBG (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is and does not look as good with the image and name squeezed into one cell, especially on desktop. This isn't standard format for tables generally. Reywas92^Talk 17:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Reywas: When I made the change, I expected it would be an improvement for both mobile users and desktop users because of the abnormally large amount of text in one of the columns. However, because (like many [most?] wp viewers) I use the mobile view, I didn’t fully take the desktop view into consideration. When I next have a chance to use the desktop view I will reconsider my opinion. I hope you would be similarly be willing to look at the mobile view and reconsider your opinion. YBG (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Reywas92: Please forgive me for once again misspelling your user name. Let me know your thoughts re mobile view and I’ll give you mine re desktop. YBG (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Reywas92: OK, I have looked at the desktop view, and I agree, with a wide screen, the current arrangement looks just fine, though I think it looks nearly as nice with the name and pic columns combined. However, when the browser window is reduced to about 85%, it starts to look imbalanced, and at 75% width, it is exceptionally poorly laid out. The alternative suffers similar problems, but they are less severe at the same width. I even think it would be better to combine the length and description columns, using a horizontal rule to separate the length from the description. This I think would improve the visual appearance for both mobile and desktop users. YBG (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Have you had an opportunity to view the article from a smart phone to see the problem I am trying to address? I would greatly appreciate hearing your ideas of how to improve accessibility for this article to all readers: mobile readers, desktop readers with a wide screen, and desktop readers without a wide screen. Thank you. YBG (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Reywas92: I am having troubles getting your ping and my signature into the same edit. Anyway, your comments after viewing the page from a mobile reader would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. YBG (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the current version and the version with the image in the name cell on mobile, and the other cells are the same width in both versions, so it doesn't seem to make a difference to me. The length needs it own column to be sortable. Reywas92^Talk 03:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)