Difference between revisions of "Category talk:National Parks"
From Geohashing
imported>MykaDragonBlue m (capitalisation, but the idea is good) |
imported>Robyn (Keep National Parks.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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) [[User:MykaDragonBlue|mykaDragonBlue [- i have no sig -]]] 01:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | 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) [[User:MykaDragonBlue|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.-[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 16:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:01, 22 May 2009
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)
