Talk:National military park

message: I moved this page from national battlefield for two reasons.
#"National Military Park" was the designation of the first such protected area.
#I do not think any country besides the U.S. has "military parks" so the name is unique, and thus the page won't be changed to something unwieldy like "U.S. National Battlefield."
"National Battlefield" may seem more common though, so the change does not make perfect sense.  Please drop me a line if anyone has a problem with it.  — Eoghanacht talk 17:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: I'd like to add a list of the 25 sites to this article, much like  has done with National recreation area. I find it rather unsatisfying that the list of of sites under each designation redirects to a different section of List of areas in the United States National Park System, since there are only somewhat arbitrary distinctions between the 4 classifications (based on size and the whims of Congress mostly I presume). They should all be listed here. I'm going to take a crack at this soon unless there are any objections. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be terrific! This has been on my long-term to-do list, but since I've only even been to one of them (so far!) it's been lower on it. My thought had been to have them all in one table since there is no real distinction, and to perhaps include a sortable column for the war or the date of the event beyond just the description. Looking forward to seeing what you do with it, and I'm happy to help with getting it toward FL status. Reywas92Talk 20:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I too envision a single sortable table, with a "designation" column and columns for event/battle, conflict/war, and dates. We'll see what I come up with when I get to it, hopefully over the next few weeks. Just wanted to plant the seed here to make sure others didn't have other plans. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I prefer that link format too, but I'd been told before at FLC not to do that because it's better to present it as sourced information with a footnote for the row. Easy enough to change back though, but a column just for a link or source takes up unnecessary space too. About Battle/description, that would be the place to discuss in the future not only what the battle was, but also why it's important and what happened then/what's there now making it a significant site/attraction. But I know there's no description there now! I can change the links back and then let you build it as you think best. Reywas92Talk 23:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we can always revisit this later, especially if someone else has objections, but I think having a separate website column for the official website is best. I get that it's technically also a RS for inclusion criteria, but really we are deferring to the linked articles for the sites and the battles and their sources. Having a separate column looks cleanest and most organized to me. WP:FLC probably has their own criteria as you say, but I think using external links in a separate column is an option per WP:ELLIST. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

text: If they were to need to go into another column, they should go next to the entry for the park in the first column. But I think think this too would be cluttered. Never ideal to have two different links next to one another. Anyway, I think things look good for now until we decide to try to something else with the table. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of sites