Template talk:Ontario parks
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This was inspired by Template:Alberta parks. The provincial parks and national historic sites were just picked recognizing the names by myself, so are by no means sorted by impartial criteria. Feel free to modify! --Padraic 15:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This template has the potential to become unwieldy large, there are afterall hundreds of provincial parks in Ontario. What decides which park to include on this template? -- P199 16:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think the highest-profile parks, with never filling more than a single line. I really don't care what the criterion is - you could make it size, annual visitors, etc. Again, looking at Template:Alberta parks, they seem to have kept a short list without going out of control. --Padraic 16:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Highest profile" is rather subjective... Hopefully it won't become a revert war. -- P199 17:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Reformatting proposal
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Proposal implemented. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I propose to reformat the "Provincial parks & affiliated areas" section of this template. It is very bloated by breaking it out by each census division. It doesn't make sense to have some groups with only 1 or 2 items. And this not useful anyway, because if you don't know in which county/RM it is located, it'll be hard to find a park. It is more intuitive to arrange them by regions (North, East, Central, Golden Horseshoe, Southwest). For Northern Ontario, there are so many parks, it may still be helpful to sort by some Districts. So it will look like this:
Thoughts? -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
BTW, provincial parks in Leeds & Grenville, SD&G, and Renfrew counties are missing. I've added them to the proposed format above. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)