Category talk:National Parks

This looks like it was moved due to page name capitalisation. Even if the page were kept, it would be moved to 'National parks' right? (and that could be a good idea actually) mykaDragonBlue [- i have no sig -] 01:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I like the idea of a National Parks category. National parks are great and I bet they make for great geohashes. The Robot change National Parks ->>Houston parks makes no sense. I'm not sure I agree with the capitalization though. One of these things is a National Park, not a National park, no? A "National park" sounds like a park run by a company called National, instead of a proper National Park.-Robyn 16:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait! That was me? Sorry. It should read "National parks" of course. -- relet 17:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not National Parks? Am I the only one that reads a "national park" as not the same thing as a "National Park"? It's like a geohashing day versus Geohashing Day. -Robyn 17:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Look at the text in official pages about Canada's National Parks and Britain's National Parks. On the other hand the USA refers to them as national parks, and Australia has mixed usage, so I guess it's just a traveler/traveller thing and I'll have to deal with it. -Robyn 18:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)