Template talk:Protected areas of New York

message: This is a good idea but, obviously, it could not be used in an actual page. What I suggest:
*Separate templates for state parks (you might want to leave the PIPC-managed ones out of it) and state forests.
*A separate template for the state Forest Preserve. The Adirondack and Catskill parks are not state parks per se ... people live in them and the state land within is managed by DEC, not the parks office. To classify them with the other state parks is misleading and inaccurate.
*In fact, both parks could probably do with separate navboxes for their management areas. I'd find a way to work the gold-and-brown color scheme used for all the signage within the parks into the template.
*Consider using blue and green (the DEC logo colors) for the state forest one as DEC is responsible for those lands too.
*NY has very little in the way of federal protected areas, because we took the initiative as a state before the feds got into it. Only one template would be needed. Daniel Case 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that NY has unwieldy number of protected areas, and I was running through different ideas of how to make the navbox less intrusive in the pages.  I was leaning towards the idea of having each type of protected area be collapsible within the navbox while still maintaining one single template.  VerruckteDan 22:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would work. It's still too big. We need separate navboxes (I've also noticed the wilderness areas in both the Adirondack and Catskill parks are missing entirely. And you have the wild forest units lumped in with the state forests ... very different categories of land. Daniel Case 01:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Hello, I would like to suggest & request that someone with the knowledge to do so convert this template to one with collapsible sections. Clearly too big, as is. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is definitely a great improvement! , by "collapse the collapsed sections", do you mean so that it shows only the title bar, and none of the sub-bars? This seems to be the way it is shown when the template is set to "state=collapsed"; see for example Allan H. Treman State Marine Park (a short one, to minimize scrolling) which is 'autocollapsed' due to the presence of the 'Ithaca' navbox, but I think most pages I've seen this template added to have been hardcoded to 'collapsed' due to its size regardless (for example, Blauvelt State Park). The sub-bars are not shown until the main bar is expanded, and each groups contents aren't revealed until a sub-bar is individually expanded. Is that what you're hoping for? Antepenultimate (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsible sections 

message: Strange that New York City vanishes in this "Protected areas of New York" navigation box. There is a separate navbox for "Protected areas of New York City". But still, logically, there should be an acknowledgment/ cross-link between the two. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , in as much as links between the two nav boxes have been added to the respective bottom bars. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York City? 

message: I wonder if it would be appropriate to include the List of National Natural Landmarks in New York under 'Lists'? According to the National Natural Landmark article, designation "encourages the conservation of outstanding examples of the natural history" however does not actually impose development restrictions or any other limitations upon landowners (public or private); nevertheless, most of the listed properties are under some sort of protection. Thoughts? Antepenultimate (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question! My reaction is "sure, why not?" In extremis, the danger is one of including every sort of designated place, whether protected or not... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, thanks for adding it. The re-arrangement to allow for 'other' private preserves is great too, and it will be fun to try to find additional articles for private NY preserves that are out there. It feels good to be able to bring them "into the fold", such as it were. Thanks! Antepenultimate (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Natural Landmarks?