Talk:List of Minnesota state parks

message: Reverted 12 May 2023 edits: the edits moving Upper Sioux Agency into the "former parks" table implies the land transfer has already occurred, but per the law passed (line 226.27, per MN.gov) transfer won't occur until after 15 January 2024. Because the transfer has not occurred, it cannot be said to be a "former park", and the 12 May edits were incorrect. Lilwinwin (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upper Sioux Agency status 

message: I fixed the count to 72 which is the number listed here and on the DNR page. -Ravedave 05:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured it out. Forestville/Mystery Cave is counted as two parks but treated as one... Confusing -Ravedave 04:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  count 

message: Apparently the park was created in 1997   This totally contradicts news reports on the new park saying that it would be the "first park in 30 years". Anyone have anything else about red river that would say it started any other time? -Ravedave 04:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm. Semantics. Apparently it is a "State recreation area" along with all the other recent parks. -Ravedave 04:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red river state park 

message: Right now each row has a link to the respective DNR page, which is useful to readers, but is also the source for the facts (unless otherwise noted). Should these links be converted to refs instead, and then the use would click the ref, then the link? -Ravedave 04:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people reviewing it as an FL candidate would object to the use of so many external links.  Changing them all to refs would head off that problem.--Appraiser 14:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links v Refs 

message: I removed the history section until sources could be provided diff. -Ravedave 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I went through the USGS named places database for MN and added their coordinates.  Found two problems.  A few parks were not in the USGS list.  And some in USGS list were not in this article.  (SEWilco 04:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Meyer book has lots of information on former parks.  I added a table to the article listing the ones below.  How much information do we want there?  There are lots more former parks.  Do we want to add acreage, county, body of water, or more detail about why they were disbanded? What about renamed state parks, like Baptism River/Tettegouche and O.L. Kipp/Great River Bluffs?  McGhiever 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need don't need much detail on former parks - they were/are not important enough.  Unless your source gives reasons, it may be difficult to find why they were given up.  There have been recent proposals to decommission some of the smaller ones for budgetary reasons; presumably that is what happened in the past as well.  As for the renamed parks, there should be redirects created (as I did recently for Baptism River)-- at least if the former name is still within living memory, or still appears in books and maps.  Perhaps the table could give the former name as an fka in the remarks section for the entry under the current name.  Kablammo 15:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently some were transferred to cities, others may have been renamed, , others I think have the name "State park" but realyl aren't state parks. I also found the laws that dictate what the parks/recreation areas are . -Ravedave 04:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  HAh also if you follow the link from the KML template, one of the parks shows up in europe :^) -Ravedave 04:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And if you looked at the table you saw one park had the same coordinate twice.  (SEWilco 05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parks counting problems 

message: What should be listed here? Are they all "parks"? Should recreation areas be broken out? -Ravedave 04:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between state parks and state recreation areas seems to be nebulous.  As far as I can tell, in most cases it's a matter of political expediency and produces no difference in the management of the unit.  Plus, since there's only 5 rec areas, breaking them out wouldn't produce a page with much substance.  I vote for leaving them in.  As for the state waysides, I get the strong impression from Meyer's book that these are parcels acquired early on that the DNR's never really known what to do with.  Finding information on them is really tough; it's hard to say for sure which ones are even still being managed by the state.  It would be nice to have them listed because they are managed by the same entity, but on the other hand they're probably never going to get individual articles.  Without much information available, the waysides may just hamper the list's chances of being a featured article.  As for state historic areas, are there any still that are managed by the Department of Natural Resources?  I think the same would hold true for them as for the waysides.  McGhiever 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of just making a separate table on this page with the rec areas in it. But you make a good point that they are basically the same thing, so I'll keep them in the table so people can sort and directly compare them. For the waysides I was thinking maybe just a bulleted list, but it might be hard to compile. The historic site mentioned above,  "Grand Mound State Historic Site" is apparently run by the MNHS not the DNR  and is actually closed. -Ravedave 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parks, recreation areas, waysides and historic areas 

message: I believe that before FLC this article should be checked for accuracy. So here is a work list, broken out in groups of 7 (more or less since there are 72). What to do: 1) Claim a group by putting your name 2) Check acreage, date, and remarks against the DNR pages for the park or provided references. 3) Check park location. 4) If you like copy edit the "remarks" 5) All redlinks will be removed before listing at FLC, so if you want to create an article go for it. 
#Afton State Park - Blue Mounds State Park
#:Thanks, Dave. I'll take the first section. Jonathunder 04:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mcghiever has completed updating acreages for all parks.  I have checked web sources in all numbered footnotes in references and compared against text; I have not checked print sources in numbered footnotes.  Kablammo 13:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact checking 

message: The dots on the map appear to be about 6 - 8 miles to the south and 2 or 3 miles to the east of their proper locations. Kablammo 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a csv with the coordinates at home, I'll see what I can do tonight soon. -Ravedave 15:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Accuracy is to be desired, but some movement might be done by a map maker who is balancing the needs of the map, such as making labels fit.  If the map has few reference points then the map won't be used for navigation and is an illustration with more artistic license than would a road map.  -- SEWilco (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All dots have been checked and moved where appropriate.  Kablammo (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well cartographed.  -- SEWilco (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Do Wildlife management areas merit being mentioned here? There are 1,380 public wildlife areas with 1.2 million acres of habitat.  http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wmas/index.html -Ravedave (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not part of the state park system, so a passing mention at most is all I personally think they would merit within this article.  They could be talked about more in depth in the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources article.  Same with the Scientific and Natural Areas.  The state park system is expressly the state parks, state recreation areas, and state waysides, so my feeling is that this article should stay focused on them.  McGhiever (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's what I was looking for. I'll try and work in a mention at the DNR article. -Ravedave (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wildlife management areas 

message: We need to add Lake Vermilion State Park to the list. Jonathunder (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And greenleaf lake...  - Ravedave (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lake Vermilion 

message: Substituted at 22:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment