Talk:RV park
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Untitled[edit]
Reasons why this page should not be for "speedy deletions". The main reason is that it has the basis (in the form of a bulleted list) for the most common types of RV camping or park facilities. Considering that pages can be edited, the listing provides as a guide for people to expound upon their knowledge and experience with these types of RV options for travelers looking for a play to stay.
This is something more thought provoking than the word "huh" that was used on the speedy deletion notification page!
MORE:
The Bureau Of Land Managment is an interesting topic that many RVer's are unaware of as an viable place to park. After all, it is your tax payer money at use. Many BLM areas have both long term (winter) and short term permits. See: the associated .gov sites for more information.
- I take it you are the original contributor. I think I stalled the 'speedy' with my edit, but the article still doesn't have any real content. If you put just a couple of sentences explaining things, and a link or two for reference, it will become a Stub and the admins will take out the speedy tag if they are awake. I'd do it myself but I know nothing about the subject. Kappa 05:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Establishment of separate 'Caravan Parks' article[edit]
Please note that I have established a separate article, as in Australia, the term 'caravan park' is broadly used to describe this category of accommodation, which is distinct from thne RV park found in the USA.
I hope that I have not upset anyone by doing this!Fitzpatrickjm 12:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Not upset, but concerned. There is already an article called 'Caravan parks' with no capital on the second word, which describes these thingies from a UK perspective. See below for proposal to merge this with the present article. Then we can get a single article for all the world's campers!Dickpenn 19:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge[edit]
Propose to merge the content of Caravan parks back into this article. It is not distinct enough for two separate articles. Note also that there is a redirect Caravan Parks (note the capitalization difference) that redirects back here. Please discuss... --Rehcsif 16:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree - the distinction is just one between American and British English, and a balanced article which covers both perspectives would be more interesting. Campers are travellers, and need to see an international view of things.Dickpenn 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at this again, there is little, if any, new info in the Caravan Park article. I was going to start salvaging it but it's really just pretty much linguistical differences... Anyone opposed ot just a strict redirect back here? --Rehcsif 20:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC
- Hearing no dissent, and seeing no content value from the former Caravan parks article that isn't already here, I simply redirect it back here and removed the merge template from this article. --Rehcsif 18:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Linkfarm[edit]
I guess it has to be, but this kind of articles generally get a lot of external links where I suspect the goal is to increase the status of some site. Does anyone have a good suggestion on what kind of external links this article really needs? Greswik 13:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Pitches vs Sites?[edit]
The article currently reads "...in allotted spaces known as "pitches" ("sites" in North America, Europe, and Australia).". Where exactly are the english-speaking countries that refer to them as "pitches"? If what appears to be the vast majority of the English-speaking world calls them "sites", shouldn't that be the primary, and "pitches" be the parenthetical? Rehcsif (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)