This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
According to the Downsview Park site it says "The long-anticipated start of development of Canada's First National Urban Park at Downsview Park is set to begin." So it would seem that they are planning on turning it into a National Park, but is not at the moment.
This page on the Parks Canada website lists the Saguenay - St. Lawrence Marine Park as a "National Marine Conservation Area", and it is a park in Quebec. So someone probably put those two facts together and got National Park. Qutezuce23:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On this map I recently bought, there is a big square of land in Northwest Lake Superior that says "National Marine Conservation area - Proposed" There's also a name, but I forget it. This is not mentioned here, is there a reason? -- Scorpion14:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've inserted a note about Lake Superior NMCA under "Adding to the System". Check out the reference for expanded information and a map. Yoho200109:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notes on original park names and dates of establishment/renaming were first included as footnotes, then moved into a Remarks column. Does this work better, or look too crowded? Also, there was a column listing exact establishment dates, helpful for research, and park anniversaries. I suggest putting it back in as a sortable column, or at least putting it in Remarks or as footnotes. Thoughts? If you can figure how to eliminate that odd narrow column on the right of the National Parks list, more power to you. Yoho200107:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the same question on Template talk:National parks of Canada: Is there a difference between a Marine Park and Marine Conservation Area? If Fathom Five for example, is titled as a Marine Park, why is it listed as a NMCA? I only ask because I'm reading in the news that Harper's announcement today will be for the "first NMCA" - which seems true, if we ignore these categorizations. --Padraic13:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bold, indeed, Padraic. Lake Superior NMCA was only just created in September 2015, after having been proposed for many years. Parks Canada news releases confused the matter, duping many into thinking it was an accomplished fact when it was not. Similar announcements have been made about other proposed parks. The legislation to create them can be years away from the announcement of intent. Yoho2001 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoho2001: In know the way is generally confusing. Parks Canada generally consider a park created when a "Land Transfer Agreement" is signed with a province or a territory. Like for La Mauricie National Park, the agreement was made in 1970, but the park was etablished only in 1977. Maybe we should put note on the parks who are actually exist because of these agreements (Pukaskwa, Bruce Peninsula and Mealy Mountains). --Fralambert (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've previously considered using that kind of format, but we don't have images for a good chunk of the parks (though to be fair, I haven't looked in about a year). I also find the coordinates a bit misleading and not particularly useful (a map is a much easier way to show the location of parks). As for the descriptions, I suppose they could work, but you would have to make sure they were sourced. -- Scorpion042223:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about not using the Sandbox...new to this. I agree, the coordinates are not useful. Descriptions could be built up over time - if some are blank until they are written, isn't that all right? Same goes for photos - I'm sure most could be acquired over time. I think it's worth it for the aesthetic improvement of the page. (Don't you think it looks a lot better though? C'mon admit it) Radiowallah (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Radiowallah[reply]
The US list is a straightforward list of the 56 national parks in the country. I like that. It isn't cluttered with park reserves, proposed or abolished parks, or any other sort of parkland managed by the park service (there are 417 in total). It's a list of the "national parks", full stop. Another page lists all official units of the national park system. I think we need to decide what sort of page this one is--a list of the 38 national parks, or a list of all units of the national park system (more then 220). I'd suggest it be a list of national parks, without adding other kinds of parklands like Rouge National Urban Park, NMCAs, NMCARs, or NPRs. Yoho2001 (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the larger, more inclusive model. The Canadian park system has been much more successful than the US system in no small part due to its greater flexibility. If it is relevant and verifiable it deserves consideration. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Gatineau Park to the list . Due to a massive amount of bureaucracy you'd expect in the Ottawa area, it is the only "Federal park" in the country. Instead of creating an entirely new article for the one "federal park", which is basically a "national park" I just added it to the list. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gatineau Park is federal in that a federal body (the National Capital Commission) governs it. Similarly, the National Battlefields Commission manages National Battlefields Park in Quebec City. But that's not on the list, either. Federal management does not a national park make. I agree with Fralambert, as "national park" refers to a particular kind of federal park, usually administered by a national park service. A few years ago, National Geographic got confused, and used the Parks Canada beaver symbol to identify Gatineau Park. They later corrected that. Yoho2001 (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on List of National Parks of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
National Park Reserves are proposed national parks, yet they are listed here as if they were full parks, albeit with a notation. This risks confusing their status, and readers. Perhaps they should be moved to the section 'Proposed national parks', on this page, since that's what they are. Yoho2001 (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are technicly quasi full national park. The "reserve" only mean the park have some First Nations territorial claim. They are listed on the National Parks Act, while, some parks (Puskawa and Bruce Peninsula) are not fully created (They exist only by the agrement with the province for the transfert of land). --Fralambert (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In reading ParksCan policy documents, it's clear that, where there are native land claims, there is no clear title, and so the National Parks Act was amended to permit creation of Park Reserves to manage lands as if they were national parks, without actually being so. So Reserves are technically not parks, but rather areas which are proposed parks. Meantime, parties including Native Americans, have agreed to allow ParksCan to administer the areas under provisions of the Parks Act. But that doesn't make them parks. That's why I'm suggesting they be grouped under Proposed Parks.
The cases of Bruce Peninsula and Pukaskwa are interesting. Bruce exists under various provincial and federal agreements, another method of creating a park. In any case, they are not Reserves, and clear title has been given for national park purposes, so it's fair to say they are national parks and should be on the main list. Yoho2001 (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We shoud keep them on the list, since mostly all the parks created since Kejimkujik were created by provincial and federal agreements. The best is probably leave a note on the creation date that the park was created by a provincial and federal agreement but was not fully established. I also think we should probably also put note on the park like:"Pacific Rim was created by a federal and provincial agreement made in 1970, the park was established only in 2001". --Fralambert (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A park created by a provincial-federal agreement is still a full park once it is established. But one created as a Reserve is not a full park until land claims are settled, and clear title is given, in which case its name is changed by removing "Reserve". It's for this reason that I suggest Reserves be removed from this list of National Parks, because they are not national parks (yet, anyway). Rouge National Urban Park should also be removed, as it wasn't created under the Parks Act, but required a separate act, and is not a National Park. Yes, it's a national park system unit, like National Historic Sites, but is in a different category from the National Parks. Yoho2001 (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is helpful, as would exact dates be. If you have sources, I'd be glad to work on this, too. Having exact dates would allow anniversaries to be acknowledged, for one thing. Yoho2001 (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoho2001: Part of it are on the las page of the [file:///C:/Users/FRANCO~1/AppData/Local/Temp/National-Park-System-Plan-Parks-Canada.pdf National Parks System Plan] of 1997. --Fralambert (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but this list does not include dates, only years. It also omits the great majority of national park system units (the National Historic Sites). I've asked Parks for a full list of dates for years. Nothing.
Unrelated: I've sent several notes over the past few years to suggest the National Historic Sites infobox line width be narrowed. The red color does not require such thick lines, which make it appear more like a warning button haha. Perhaps you have a suggestion about whom to reach regarding that template. Yoho2001 (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at all of this content, and I am leaning towards not merging all of this content into one article, similar to how I have been working on provincial/territorial lists. However, I do believe we need to be more consistent; things that are not national parks should not be in this article, and they could or should not be combined into a separate article for national protected areas. I'd like to hear some feedback on this; I'm not about to go messing around on a featured article until we have some consensus. --NaturalRX22:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Natural RX: Yes, splitting them up would be a good idea simply because they are not the same and expanding on every group separately would avoid a bloated article that tries to cover too many topics.
since you mentioned the other parks: A few users have been toiling away at the provincial parks for Wiki Loves Earth 2017 in Canada - based on Wikidata, we've created lists that should encompass all the parks in Canada by province, for example User:Braveheart/List of provincial parks of British Columbia. Just a question of how to move those lists into the main namespace now ;-) Braveheart (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on List of National Parks of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
I have just modified one external link on List of National Parks of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
I added a hatnote to distinguish this list from the list of parks operated by Quebec which are also called national parks, but I'm not sure if the note is very clear. Would appreciate more eyes on it. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you sort the parks by area, Kluane (area = 5,900 square km) is ranked higher than Wood Buffalo (area = 44,972 square km). I suspect that this is because Kluane has two values for its area, the value for the park and the value for the reserve. Both values are lower than the area of Wood Buffalo, but the sorting algorithm is messed up by the formatting of the value for Kluane, or something like that. I have no idea how to correct this. AlainFournier (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]