 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Where did the term "Park" originate? Did it refer to "Parking the car" and getting out etc. etc.?
A "natural, semi-natural or planted" space — what does this phrase exclude? If it doesn't exclude anything, how can it be a useful part of the definition?
Is this list really worth having? It is inevitably a magnet for everyone to add their local park to, whether it is notable or not. Links to them can all be found by following through the Category:Parks. I'd suggest the list be deleted. - MPF 22:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is exactly and only what I'm going to try to do, and if that helps any I will be glad. Resonanteye 14:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC) I think the "notable parks" section should simply be a list page. Or there should be a "see also=" that links to a page with resources that will allow users to find them. I rearranged a bit- let me know what you think. Resonanteye 15:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I remomed and replaced this image becuase it is poor quality and depicts a lake more than it does a park. Lumos3 14:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would "Wilderness" areas be related to parks? Some of them are virtually National "Forest" in purpose. Just curious, since they are designated for a special purpose. Does the virtually untouched nature of Wilderness make it an antithesis to a park, rather than being "park-like"?Mdvaden 18:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs sourcing. --Lendorien (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting an impression of the orginal vegetation of a country trough its national parcs is a misconception; parks usually feature non-endemic crops and the more urban ones are completely man-made (eg featuring short grasses), incorporating only the designer's vision of the original vegetation.
can this be included to article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.164.130 (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says the first public park was in England, but what about Boston Common?72.78.166.2 (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says the first public park in England was in Salford, what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_Arboretum ? opened in 1840. 82.17.110.210 (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we need a bit more about parks in literature and history, the trouble is defining what is a park and what is a garden. There is the Garden of Eden, Xanadu and so on, but definition is difficult. 92.20.152.40 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation ground redirect here, however there is not discussion of recreation grounds in the article to distinguish them from parks in general. It would be great if someone could add at least a brief description. PeterEastern (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
An image used in this article, File:Laleh park jonub.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Laleh park jonub.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Many parks were donated to the public by private individuals, and I suspect that the first parks were of this type. I came to this page to see if most parks, and the first parks were originally private, but the history section contains no information about how parks came into being. It would be nice if someone in the know would add this information. FreeFlow99 (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether there are any parks removing non-native trees. I found some references of parks were non-native trees are being removed, but that mainly seems to be for wildfire reasons (see here. ParkPride also seems to give courses on the issue, but they haven't done it in any parks themselves. It also seems to be done in the Caledonian Forest, but that's not a park. Has someone found any other references ? KVDP (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recently removed the completely random and unnecessary section about women's safety in parks. It was reverted and incorrectly branded as vandalism. I'm here to say that that section has no place on that page. Why do we need it? 24.18.128.102 (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit however that my use of the word sexism was too rash. But that doesn't negate the uselessness of this section.24.18.128.102 (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting topic. Not very medical. Looking at perceived safety is interesting. Just needs secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with James, it is an interesting analysis. I'm less sure about the text about "being better at picking up visual cues" (it seems more likely that the association of said cues to danger or potential harassment is clearer - I'll have to look at the sources to see what they say), and the text could be tightened, but as long as it's properly sourced I think it belongs. Carl Fredrik talk 14:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
___
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
