Talk:Timbavati Private Nature Reserve

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Timbavati Private Nature Reserve article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

South Africa: Protected areas Mid‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the African protected areas task force.

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge discussion

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

On their own, the constituent parts of the Timbavati Association is not Notable (See WP:GNG), but combined as the Timbavati, they are. I suggest that the content from these constituent reserves be merged with Timbavati and that they simply redirect here. --NJR_ZA (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

In some way I agree with you, however in a few more years from now nobody will know how the Timbavati was started (the same goes for many private groups), and some of these are still running their own lodges or camps, and therefore still exist. I disagree with what happened at for instance at the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, where you can't see the individual info on the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park (South Africa), nor the Gemsbok National Park (Botswana). Both are redirected!! I fiend that short sighted, and stupid. Flagman (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Personally I feel the redirects from Kalahari Gemsbok and Gemsbok to Kgalagadi is a good thing, but you are right as far as the loss of information is concerned. The History section in Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park should be extended significantly in order to cover the subject. In the case of Kalahari Gemsbok, Gemsbok and Kgalagadi there might eventually be enough detail and history for each to warrant their own articles, since they are big and have been around for a while. I doubt however that will be the case for the Timbavati members. As far as Fauna is concerned, there is not much to say for each except that it is the same as Kruger since the fences are dropped. Their individual accommodation will already be covered in the Timbavati article, so all that is really left is their individual history. A handful might warrant their own articles, but from the limited content in the ones listed for merging, it does not seems like they qualify.

Feedback on African article discussions on Wikipedia can be few and slow, so we can leave this here for a while and see if we get some other opinions. --NJR_ZA (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic