Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

A plea

Of late, I have been finding and correcting an awful lot of cases of species piped to their genus in articles in the bailiwick of this Wikiproject. I know that it is embarrassing if a species in your park or natural area doesn't have an article, but covering up a redlink by leaving it unwikilinked or forcing a bluelink somehow is worse. Redlinks encourage article creation. Also, when somebody does get around to creating the article on a species, it will not link to the new article. Please, just leave them redlinked. If it really bothers you, drop us a line over at Wikiproject Plants and editors there will be delighted to create an article for you. Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Abductive: do you mean editors are piping to the genus, or creating redirects from species names to the genus? I agree piping is counterproductive, whereas creating a redirect would be completely acceptable (as long as the genus page lists the species in question). Maybe redirect creation should be encouraged instead? Then when an article for the species is created, the links will still be in place. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mdewman6:, a look at the talk page of WP:PLANTS (and its archive) will reveal that creating redirects from species to genera has become increasingly unpopular over the years. Now the members of the project are looking into getting a bot to mass-undo all such redirects. I imagine that if a user started creating redirects now and didn't stop when asked, they would be reported to WP:ANI. The reason? A bluelink makes the chances of an article being created close to zero. A bluelink in an article conceals an instance of a redlink that the user finds embarrassing, and wastes a chance that an editor will happen along, see the redlink, and decide to create a stub. Worse, a global bluelink in the form of a redirect makes it difficult for any editor to discover that there is no article, even when they are looking for missing articles. For example, they often look at genus pages for redlinks, or create a list in their sandbox and look for redlinks. Instead, please drop by WP:WikiProject Plants/Article requests and add a request for the article to be created. Abductive (reasoning) 06:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Mescalero Sands South Dune

A while ago an editor posted a substantial draft at Draft:The Mescalero Sands of New Mexico, referring to this National Natural Landmark. The editor is a librarian and researcher who worked on the landmark's recognition in the 1960s and has written a good deal about the topic (with references), however what they've written here is more of a promotional brochure, and they need help turning it into an encyclopedia article. If you're interested in helping out, please visit the draft. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ivanvector I'll take a look at it and see what I can do to make an encyclopedic article out of it. I've picked up two sources already. One is the BLM site which details information on the North Dune OHVA and the second is the NPS site which details some information on the South Dune. I'll see what I can come up with over the next few days unless someone else is already piecing it together. I would love to collaborate if that's the case. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I should say, sources on top of the information already provided in the draft which needs to be segmented and rewritten in encyclopedic format. The draft is full of information and the references are great. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Possession Island (Queensland) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Possession Island (Queensland) to be moved to Possession Island, Queensland. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

John Cummings (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Featured list candidate National recreation area

I have nominated National recreation area for FL at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National recreation area/archive1. Any comments would be welcome and appreciated. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 03:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Beit She'arim National Park listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Beit She'arim National Park to be moved to Beit She'arim necropolis. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Boca Chica Village, Texas listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Boca Chica Village, Texas to be moved to Starbase, Texas. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Biligiriranga Hills listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Biligiriranga Hills to be moved to Biligiri Rangana Hills. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Tijuca Forest listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tijuca Forest to be moved to Tijuca National Park. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Verijärve Landscape Conservation Area listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Verijärve Landscape Conservation Area to be moved to Verijärv Landscape Conservation Area. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 09:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Notability

Out of the curiosity, are there a specific set of notability guidelines for parks? Kokopelli7309 (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Specific to parks, no. But you should follow the guidelines for geographic features. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Lake Skadar listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lake Skadar to be moved to Lake Scutari. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Manawatāwhi / Three Kings Islands listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Manawatāwhi / Three Kings Islands to be moved to Three Kings Islands. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Vaskjõe Nature Reserve listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Vaskjõe Nature Reserve to be moved to Vaskjõgi Nature Reserve. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Anyone?

Can someone help me and my efforts at Serengeti National Park to make it a GA and eventually FA. Rewards if you want a barnstar. Only for people that have contributed significantly. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 06:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Stub Assistance

Hi there! I am a university student currently working on my first stub! I would love if someone could have a look at my progress! The stub is Serendip Sanctuary. Thank you Tangentcookie (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Soudan Underground Mine State Park listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Soudan Underground Mine State Park to be moved to Lake Vermilion-Soudan Underground Mine State Park. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Menemsha Hills listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Menemsha Hills to be moved to Menemsha Hills and The Brickyard. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Project on Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area

Over the next week, there is going to be a work project on Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area by the Wikipedia Discord server as part of an attempt to get Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area to B-class and we would appreciate your help. They are trying to get all vital articles to B-class. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC for possible consensus that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 09:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Mission Peak listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Mission Peak to be moved to Mission Peak Regional Preserve. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Wyss Foundation: Request for review

Hello everyone! Last week, I posted a request to the Wyss Foundation article talk page asking editors to review some proposed revisions that I shared there. My request can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wyss_Foundation#Proposed_edits_to_Conservation_subsection. The context is that an IP editor recently added some material to the Wyss Foundation article that is critical of the 30x30 conservation plan, which is okay, but I think the surrounding paragraph would benefit from some additional details.

Due to my COI (I work for the Wyss Foundation) I will not make any changes to the article myself. Instead, I’ve reached out to WikiProject Environment and now here in hopes someone may have the time to review what I’m proposing.

Thank you so much! ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

ZH for Wyss Foundation, That appears like a reasonable request and the requested edit seems neutral, allowing for criticism found in reliable sources while also providing support found in equally reliable sources, but I'll see if I can find someone else to look at it too. Thank you for going about this the right way. --ARoseWolf 18:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

User:ARoseWolf Thank you so much for taking a look! If you have any questions about the proposed revisions, please let me know. ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Netherzone, I have reviewed the information above and it seems there may be a little too much promotional information in the paragraph but I would like another pair of trusted eyes looking at it. I can get someone else but you came to mind first because of our interactions in the past and your neutral observations. --ARoseWolf 12:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi ARoseWolf and Netherzone. I would totally welcome any edits to my proposed wording. Was just trying to provide some additional context about the Wyss Foundation's support for Indigenous-led conservation efforts. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

ZH for Wyss Foundation, You made the right decision to disclose your paid COI on your user page, and to seek advise. I hope you understand what I am about to say. I do not want to compromise my reputation by engaging in paid-editing by proxy. I have an aversion to paid editing because I believe that the encyclopedia is an educational tool and should not be used for advocacy, advertising or promotion, no matter how noble the cause. I am a volunteer, as are most of the editors here; we are not compensated for our time editing Wikipedia as a labor of love and an investment in future generations. The only paid editors that I support are librarians who have made many wonderful contributions. Please see this essay for more information regarding the dynamics of volunteers editing for paid editors: WP:BOGOF. It states that “volunteers fixing the articles for paid editors is counterproductive” because it internalizes systemic bias. See also Free-rider problem. I think the material you want to add is promotional, advertorial, and non-encyclopedic. I hope this does not come across as too blunt but I am curious why the Wyss Foundation or Hansjörg Wyss do not hire a PR agent or an advertising agency for self-promotion. I’m very sorry if this is not the answer you were looking for. I wish you the best, and hope that you decide to contribute to the encyclopedia in relation to subjects with which you do not have a conflict of interest. Add ping to ARoseWolf to keep her in the loop. Netherzone (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Netherzone. I wasn’t aware of that essay, but having just read it I do understand your position. I hope you'll allow me to explain why I made the request. On August 28, an IP editor added language to the Wyss Foundation article stating that the Foundation's Campaign for Nature was "highly criticized by indigenous rights groups, human rights organizations and the environmental movement." Neither of the sources cited make any reference to the Wyss Foundation or Campaign for Nature, though both do detail criticisms of the 30x30 initiative more generally. I am okay with the article including this criticism and have not attempted to have it removed. But the idea that "the environmental movement" as a whole is opposed to the 30x30 initiative seems like a stretch, and the inclusion of this misleading language in the article (for well over a month now) seems non-encyclopedic.

When I became aware of the IP editor's change, I realized that the article didn't currently mention any of the Indigenous-led conservation efforts that were supported by the Wyss Foundation and covered in mainstream, reliable sources (Mountain Journal, The Guardian, Indian Country Today). I included them in my request to underscore to editors and readers alike that the Wyss Foundation has worked with Indigenous groups in the past and continues to do. I still believe that context is useful, but if highlighting these tribal-led projects seems promotional then I understand if they are not included. But I do invite you, and ARoseWolf, or any other editor reading this to review the sources I've provided and then consider whether the claim that the Campaign for Nature is "highly criticized by indigenous rights groups, human rights organizations and the environmental movement" is accurate and should continue to remain in the article as written. ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I did some work on the article. I adjusted the part that erroneously implied that Indigenous groups are all opposed to 30x30, while retaining the reality that some are. I did not add in all the long, long detailed sentences proposed by User:ZH for Wyss Foundation detailing this, that and the other donation of the Wyss Foundation to various Indigenous-led conservation efforts because cumulatively it very much seemed to cross over into puffery. Novellasyes (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Netherzone. I knew I could count on your seasoned experience to review the information provided. You have a very keen eye towards the smallest of promotional language. Also, thank you, Novellasyes, for editing the article to bring it more in line with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and objectivity. ZH for Wyss Foundation, I know this may not be what you wanted but it is a delicate balance to provide information as accurately as reliable sources can provide without being necessarily promotional of any particular viewpoint. Sometimes when we are connected so deeply and feel so passionately about something, as I would expect you do about the Wyss Foundation and its activities, even our most objective language can include some promotional information. I would expect nothing less. Thank you for bringing forward your concerns with neutrality within the article. I have reviewed the edits Novellasyes has so graciously made to the article and it appears to have remedied the initial concern about non-neutral language. --ARoseWolf 17:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses, Novellasyes and ARoseWolf, and I appreciate the edits that Novellasyes made to update the page. The edits completely resolve my concerns. I very much respect all of your input here as experienced editors. As you mention ARoseWolf, even when someone like me takes care to try to avoid promotional wording as much as possible, having an impartial review is necessary - I certainly appreciate that. This has been a very helpful discussion and I'm grateful to you all for being willing to look into this and provide your feedback. ZH for Wyss Foundation (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Yosemite

I have nominated Yosemite 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. Hog Farm _Talk 07:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

South East Forests National Park listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for South East Forests National Park to be moved to South East Forest National Park. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Chaco Culture National Historical Park Featured article review

I have nominated Chaco Culture National Historical 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC About "Nearby State Parks"

There are, per my count, 175 articles that have a "Nearby State Parks" section, which is generally a list of state parks, sorted by distanced, within 30 miles of the park. Does this information belong on wikipedia and if so should we expand this practice to more parks? Should parks have a Nearby State Parks Section

• (A): No, remove from current state parks
• (B): Yes, keep on current pages
• (C): Yes, expand to more park pages (with comparably ranked local parks for nations that do not use states, e.g. Provincial Parks for Canada or Regional Parks in Italy)

snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 20:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Support option A in my view, this content is not-encyclopedic per WP:NOTDIR 1. I think that while this information could be useful; it does not seem appropriate for wikipedia. Snood1205 20:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Between A and B Well I think more than half of those with this are List of Pennsylvania state parks. I think it's perfectly fair to provide nearby parks as a See Also, but 30 miles is arbitrary. I wouldn't advocate this be standard, but I don't think it needs to be removed altogether either. Maybe limit to a smaller radius. Reywas92^Talk 04:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Please remember, RfCs and other discussions at WikiProjects are not allowed to create default rules to be applied to all articles perceived by members to be in the WikiProject's purview. Per WP:Advice pages and community consensus concerning the massive disruption and multiple ArbCom cases that led to that standard, we can't create an overriding rule here. You can always get feedback through this RfC process, but whatever the outcome of the discussion here, it won't abrogate you of responsibility for getting WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on each individual article where there is a dispute about whether to use that standard: you can't just refer back to this RfC in those cases and claim that this discussion applies as "consensus" for every article that might conceivably be covered by this WikiProject's interest. Because that's not how consensus building works on en-Wikipedia. The editors on each individual article/talk page make the decisions for that article, and the only way to make broader rules concerning content is to create a WP:PROPOSAL to create a new policy, or get consensus to change an existing policy, guideline, or MoS page. If we let every WikiProject create its own idiosyncratic rules (outside of the normal PROPOSAL/LOCAL CONSENSUS processes) for every article its members consider to be in their wheelhouse, there would be bickering and fighting without end between WikiProjects as to which project's rules took priority--which is exactly what happened before the Advice Pages rule was established. So by all means, get feedback here. But anyone who tries to enforce the outcome here on individual articles without going through the local consensus/dispute resolution process is likely to land themselves in hot water, FYI.

All of that said, my feedback is that having "nearby state park" content (including sections) is not per se problematic. It very much would depend on the individual article (and the particular form of the content), so a blanket answer is not appropriate here, but I do broadly disagree with the assumption that this automatically constitutes WP:NOT material. I think in the case of major hubs for transit, travel, and tourism, for example, it might be fairly relevant information which a reader may find useful. At the same time I will grant that I think most cases are probably either borderline or outright into WP:INDISCRIMINATE. But there are enough potential exceptions as I see it, that even if we were allowed to create a general rule here, I would not endorse one in this case. Leave this one to the editors of individual articles to figure out; it's the appropriate solution on more than one level. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that Snow Rise:. This is my first RfC so I wasn't entirely sure on the process of it and I tried to read up on it at WP:RFC, but I was sure that I had missed something. Knowing the implications of the outcome of this RfC makes a lot of sense. I should try to change this to be more guidance related than being a rule; however, that could disrupt the previous !votes. Would you advise editing the RfC now or would this comment be sufficient? snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 13:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Does this arise from a particular article or discussion elsewhere? While Snowrise is not quite wrong, I think that comes off far too strongly. Consistency across closely related articles is good and it's perfectly reasonable to discuss changes that could affect multiple pages in a centralized location. Saying this should instead be 175 separate discussions reads as stonewalling by process. This isn't making a "default rule" that is exempt from further local review, but instead getting broader participation about general style, which is something countless Wikiprojects across the encyclopedia do, in fact, broadly do with success. Saying that different Wikiprojects would have conflicting processes is a unlikely straw man in this case and pretends that we aren't smart enough to do thing case-by-case when necessary. If snood wants to make an edit to many pages but with community buy-in first, a discussion here is absolutely the right way to do it. Reywas92^Talk 15:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

"Consistency across closely related articles is good and it's perfectly reasonable to discuss changes that could affect multiple pages in a centralized location."

...Yeah, except I already said that above, in almost precisely the same terms: there is absolutely no harm in having this discussion here and producing feedback. The only concern comes after the discussion: the outcome here cannot be presented as WP:CONSENSUS on individual articles. And no, I'm not making this up or exaggerating matters: this rule has been around for at least a decade and is standing community consensus, further endorsed by multiple ArbCom in multiple cases. There's no problem (and indeed significant value in many cases) in harmonization, but this project has a process for doing that via WP:PAGS, WP:PROPOSAL, and WP:MoS. Any additional rules formed at WikiProjects are Advice Pages only: that's just the way it works here...

"Saying this should instead be 175 separate discussions reads as stonewalling by process."

Uh, excuse me? WP:STONEWALLING? I am completely uninvolved in any underlying editorial dispute here: I'm an WP:FRS respondent with no dog in this race and no particularly strong feelings on the underlying question: I'm just a community member providing requested feedback through a process requesting it. And my advice here was specifically formulated not to influence the outcome of the discussion but in fact to help others stay out of trouble by improperly applying the outcome of the discussion. You need to be much, much, much more careful about implying bad faith and disruptive behaviour on the part of another community member without better understanding of the relevant policy and facts of the individual situation.

Also note that you significantly misconstrued what I said. I never said that 175 separate discussions have to take place: I said that on any individual article where there is an objection to the rule/advice devised here, you still need to follow the normal WP:LOCALCONSENSUS/dispute resolution process on that article. And I'm sorry, but that's just absolutely a fact: just try ignoring WP:BRD on one of those individual articles and edit warring to enforce the "consensus" here if one of the local editors to that article objects--really, just see how well that goes for you. This is important information that at least one editor here was unaware of and which could have caused issues, and frankly you're muddying the waters here by misreading and misrepresenting what I am trying to tell them. There's no harm in gathering buy-in for a particular approach here, but if the editors of individual articles don't want to just accept the advice generated here (remember, that's all that it is), you still have to have the normal dispute resolution process on that article. I'm sorry that seems onerous and time-consuming to you, but it is in fact just the standard Wikipedia process, so I'm not sure why it seems so over-the-top to someone who has clearly been on the project for a while?

"This isn't making a "default rule" that is exempt from further local review, but instead getting broader participation about general style, which is something countless Wikiprojects across the encyclopedia do, in fact, broadly do with success."

Yup, and again, not remotely inconsistent with what I said. I may have foregrounded the issues with consensus, but I also made certain to note that discussion can proceed here and that it may very well be helpful. And it's pretty clear from Snood's response that they entirely understood the distinction I was making, so I'm not really sure what your comment adds to the discussion: you seem to have hastily misread both our posts.

"Saying that different Wikiprojects would have conflicting processes is a unlikely straw man in this case and pretends that we aren't smart enough to do thing case-by-case when necessary."

Except massive disruption resulting from precisely such contests of will between WikiProjects and consuming vast amounts of community energy to address is exactly what happened to force the promulgation of this rule in the first place: a fact you would have been aware of, if you had read my post more carefully. If you managed to avoid observing the epic kerfuffles like the infamous "Infobox Wars", which alone spawned numerous ANI threads and ArbCom cases (and which, believe it or not, has an only slightly melodramatic title, relative to the disruption caused), then more good fortune you. But I assure you, this rule didn't come out of nowhere, and there is plenty of reason behind why the community adopted it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Snood1205: Hi Snood: in truth, my caveat above is so prominent and occurs so early in the discussion, that I'm not sure you need to make an adjustment to the language of the RfC prompt: I think it will be clear to anyone arriving here that you are formulating WP:Advice page feedback, not firm consensus that can be applied locally at individual articles (without further discussion) if it is objected to at those articles. Also, many experienced editors (though as this discussion proves, not nearly all) will realize this merely by virtue of recognizing that they are responding to an RfC on a WikiProject. In any event, the real issue here is not so much how the RfC is formatted so much as the editors here knowing how they can (and cannot) use the outcome of this discussion in a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS context. So long as everyone is careful about that, I don't think amendment to the RfC is strictly speaking necesary. That said, we're early enough in that if you felt that some changes to the way the discussion is presented are valuable, that also would be fine: I would just leave the content of the ABC options you present more or less the same.

I do apologize for the bloat that this side-discussion now constitutes: it was not my intention that more than my original post would be necessary to discuss this point of procedure. I think you approached the RfC itself well, but I just wanted to forewarn against the possibility of stepping over the line in applying the outcome, because I have seen a lot of well-intentioned editors make that mistake in connection to WikiProject discussions, simply by being unaware of the Advice Pages distinction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• It seems there's a lot that could be evaluated case-by-case about nearby parks. I would say I am between options A and B because there are cases in which nearby state parks can be close to others but there are land features that prevent direct access or interconnectivity from ever happening. There are situations where land is not contiguous for a state park which can complicate the entire process of evaluating proximity. – The Grid (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Alcatraz Island listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Alcatraz Island to be moved to Alcatraz. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Ts'il?os Provincial Park listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ts'il?os Provincial Park to be moved to Ts'ilʔos Provincial Park. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Requested move at Talk:Ts'il?os Provincial Park#Requested move 25 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ts'il?os Provincial Park#Requested move 25 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

List of U.S. National Parks by elevation listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of U.S. National Parks by elevation to be moved to List of national parks of the United States by elevation. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Template:National parks of Israel listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:National parks of Israel to be moved to Template:National parks of Israel and Israeli-occupied territories. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Manawatāwhi / Three Kings Islands listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Manawatāwhi / Three Kings Islands to be moved to Three Kings Islands. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 09:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Clayton Lake listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Clayton Lake to be moved to Clayton Lake (Oklahoma). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Mount Wellington (Tasmania) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Mount Wellington (Tasmania) to be moved to kunanyi / Mount Wellington. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Mount Wellington (Tasmania) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Mount Wellington (Tasmania) to be moved to kunanyi / Mount Wellington. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Đerdap national park listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Đerdap national park to be moved to Đerdap National Park. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Featured Article Save Award for Antarctica

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Antarctica/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)