Talk:Big Bend National Park

Map

gray

green

greener

greener with white

This discussion continued from Star nom discussion

I've put up two versions of the map, one green, one gray, for comparison. I didn't use the old park green that we've used in the past, since I think it's overly bright and looks a little garish. The high contrast park color (usually accompanied by the tree pattern) is a little too dark to be used as the foreground, so I lightened and desaturated it a bit. And the pattern used on the foreground would not be desirable, since it would muddle the details. Personally, I do like the green version better.

The map could certainly stand to be improved, especially since it's only usable now when printed at a very high resolution (this was even more true of the original NPS map). Fixing it up would be a good bit of work though, since the text didn't import correctly. Basically all the text on the map would have to be retyped. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 18:56, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

I think the gray version is much clearer. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:39, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

How about this green in between the gray and the darker green? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 00:15, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

That, or we could use white text with the dark green. (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 00:30, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

Bit of a weird shade, but it's legible enough. I'm not particularly hung up on needing to represent parks as green though... (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:18, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

I kinda have a pretty strong preference for green park maps  :) I don't think the darker green is any less legible or harder on the eyes than the grey. I don't mind the in-between green/grey either if others prefer it to the darker green – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 00:32, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

I'd also like to see what these look like printed in B&W. White text, for example, gets muddled very easily in print. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:27, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

I'm not a big fan of the white text version. But I think the "in-between" color would print pretty well. Even better with the trail colors PerryPlanet used on the map now in the article. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 01:29, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

Star nomination - archived discussion

Howdy, all. I'd like submit for nomination a destination dear to my heart: Big Bend National Park. Hopefully everything is up to snuff. (WT-en) Army of me 00:59, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

• Support. It's been a pleasure to watch this article grow, and I can't see any obvious room for improvement. I hope I'll get to put it to use soon! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 12:15, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

• Support. Fantastic article! I'm always finding reasons to be proud of our park articles. However, there is one thing - the star criteria for a park says that the article must have a Wikivoyage-style map (this was established when Zion was promoted to star), rather than the regular NP version. If you want, I can make this map, because this article is truly exquisite. (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 13:13, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

I was wondering about that. Do you know where that discussion took place? IMO, the detailed NPS park map with all the trails is going to be more useful than a WT-style map, and it's Public Domain, so it's not like there are any licensing issues. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 13:17, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

Ironically, I think I used some of those same arguments way back when...The discussion is here: Project:Star nominations/Archives#Zion National Park. I don't want to hold Big Bend back from star status for this minor issue either, but it became such a big deal when Zion was up that I figured it would come back... (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 13:59, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure the NPS map is readable at printed size, but I'm also not sure I'd hold the article back from Star status just for that reason. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:22, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

If you are up to creating a WT-style map, with at least the trailheads marked (if not the trails)—awesome. It might be necessary to use more than one png for such a map (e.g., northeast, northwest, southeast, southwest). But like Ryan said in this discussion, I don't think it makes sense to substitute a WT-style map that is less useful than the NPS map. Per a strict reading of the star status criteria, use of an NPS map could be a disqualifier, but a WT-style map could satisfy the requirements for star status without being up to the NPS standards!

It would be great if we could grab the vector version of the NPS map and alter the colors to our preferred style, maybe remove the vague topographical definition, etc. But unless someone here has access to a vector graphics editing program that can import NPS pdfs (like $600 Illustrator [1]), then that won't be a realistic option. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 15:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

Just tested, and Inkscape can open it without problem. The entire background is one easily-removable element as well. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 17:05, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

Aha, so I was raising a fuss for no reason ;) I'll whip up a WT-style map from the NPS pdf today. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 18:23, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

That was extremely easy! I'll play around with the map a bit more, to remove some of the less important info, make the more important info more visible, alter some more of the colors for visibility, etc. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 18:38, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

• Support. I love this part of Texas, and this article is excellent — it feels comprehensive, provides exactly the right level of detail on everything, and is thoroughly enjoyable to read. (And FYI — I have access to a copy of Illustrator should it ever prove necessary.) (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 20:55, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

• Support. Good news on the map discovery, that's handy, I would have not supported without a WT map (no other guidebook would go to publication with a NP map just because it's easier :) Peter, are we not using green for NP map backgrounds anymore? – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 17:03, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

• Support Fantastic guide, and as for the map I have a feeling the standard dark green, would make it confusing to read, but maybe we could test it? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 17:57, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

It's not the dark green used for city parks, it's green like this one :) – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 18:27, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

I'm no fan of that old neon green, but I've put up a quieter green version for comparison here. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 18:59, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Love it.... perhaps you should propose that as the new standard on the htdam talk page – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 20:08, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

• It's a great article, and as someone said, it really is an enjoyable read. I just have one question: I have seen previous discussions about the need for linked articles to be at guide status. Does that still stand? There are some red articles, but more importantly, the cities Study Butte-Terlingua and Lajitas, which are mentioned repeatedly as the places to "Eat", "Drink", and "Sleep" are only outlines... Is that an issue? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:33, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
  • I think that usually means linked in a "regions", "cities", or "other destinations" section (that is, sub-articles that would point back to this one in breadcrumb navigation). (WT-en) LtPowers 11:10, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

Visitor centers

Currently, all of the visitor centers are listed in the #See section. However, per WV:ABC#V, they should be in the understand section. However, given that this is a star article, I'm reluctant to touch it. Any objections before I move the visitor centers up to #Understand? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Banner

The current banner doesn't give any feel of the place. When I first used Category:Star articles as an inspiration to write Sydney Harbour National Park as well as Mungo National Park, I instantly ignored this one because of the dull pagebanner (as well as Isle Royale National Park). Nevertheless, here's three new banners I've cropped. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Banner 0

Banner 1

Banner 2

Banner 3

• Tough choice between 3 and 2, but I think I would choose 3. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

2, 0=3, 1. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 03:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

(nominator's preference): 3, 2, 1, 0. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems three has overall more support so I'll switch it. 3 also made it on my favorite banner collection SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)