Talk:National recreation area

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Page moved. (non-admin closure)  ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: National Recreation Area →  – When used by itself as a concept, this does not seem to be a proper noun that would call for capitalization (as opposed to a specific NRA, e.g. Lake Mead National Recreation Area). At present, the lead and body of this article do not consistently use the capitalized form. Compare to the title capitalization of pages for analogous U.S. federally protected areas, like National forest (United States), National grassland, National monument (United States), etc.. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Yes, but now that I've added the list and plan to expand the table, I'm wondering if it should be List of national recreation areas of the United States, similar to List of national monuments of the United States and List of national memorials of the United States. I don't know if other countries use this term so List of national recreation areas may also be appropriate. Reywas92Talk 04:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fine with that. I think List of national recreation areas would be appropriate, as I think this is a purely U.S. term (like National Grassland). If so, National grassland should similarly be moved to List of national grasslands. And of course all the non-list forms of the title would exist as redirects. I believe this would leave National forest (United States) and National monument (United States) as the only non-list articles on U.S. federal protected areas, both of which have separate list articles. I think this is okay, as these articles have history sections that are likely too extensive to be merged into the list pages. Odd that there is no stand-alone article at National park (United States), though I suppose the content of such an article is divided among List of national parks of the United States, National Park Service, History of the National Park Service, and elsewhere. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on all points then. On the other hand, since there is no separate non-list main article, and I intend to expand the prose section a bit, there doesn't really need to be the "List of" to disambiguate to signify being a subarticle – similar to FLs Mayor of San Diego and Governor of Colorado – but I know it's fairly standard. There was briefly a stub for national park, but definitely not necessary (I'd prefer to merget the national monument article and list myself but it's already massive). Reywas92Talk 01:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

text: To add to the discussion, the National Park Service refers to them as "national recreation areas" (see link) when discussing the concept, but uses capitalization when part of the formal name (see other link). Minnemeeples (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Well, I think the RM needs to be closed first, by an uninvolved editor, and whoever closes it will then be responsible for the move over redirect. I agree it would be nice to do our own moves after a non-controversial move discussion, but WP:RM requires a close and move to be done by an uninvolved editor. With this being open 8 days and there being fairly clear consensus, this should happen soon. Alternatively you could try to expedite by requesting an admin's attention, though unsure that'll help. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 December 2020