Difference between revisions of "Category talk:National Parks"
From Geohashing
imported>Relet |
imported>Robyn (I want a P!) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::Oh, wait! That was me? Sorry. It should read "National parks" of course. -- [[User:relet|relet]] 17:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | ::Oh, wait! That was me? Sorry. It should read "National parks" of course. -- [[User:relet|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. -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 17:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:57, 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)
- 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)
