Talk:Warrumbungles

Discussion of Merge with Warrumbungles National Park article, 9 July 2006
I disagree with the proposed merger however I propose
 * Warrumbungles should be an article explicitly about the geological feature
 * Facilities in the area etc should be a minor section linking back to...


 * Warrumbungles National Park should discuss the park itself, with a minor section referring readers to the Warrumbungles article.

Many readers will be primarily interested in one issue or the other: either the geological feature, or visiting the park. The national park provides recreational facilities and a protected area of natural habitats with the centrepiece (the reason the park was created) being the geological feature. But many bushwalkers aren't into geology and many geologists only walk through the bush in order to reach an interesting rock outcrop. Garrie 01:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, that there shouldn't be a merge. The mountain range has its own history, seperate from the area defined as the national park.  Carnarvon Gorge is also distinct from the Carnarvon National Park it is contained within. - Shiftchange 12:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This merge was proposed over a month ago. A concesus of Do Not Merge has been reached (there have been no arguements raised promoting the merger and a sound case proposed for continuing with two seperate articles). I am removing the template from both pages. Garrie 21:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

—

Future direction of this article
Given the existence of Warrumbungle National Park it would make most sense if this article continues to provide information regarding the geological feature, rather than topics such as the walks, wildlife and facilities, which are more associated with the National Park rather than the feature/outcrop/remnant itself (sorry, I'm not a geologist. It's just a big rock to me ;) ) Garrie