Talk:Hyde Park, London/Archive 1

Archive 1

Kensington Gardens

Removed comment from body of article:

actually some of the features listed here are in Kensington Gardens - sometimes regarded as part of Hyde Park, although in fact it isn't.

Any chance you know which features those are? -- John Owens 17:37 18 May 2003 (UTC)

OK, got your map handy? Generally speaking (just covering my ass here in case someone comes up with evidence that completely contradicts me) everything to the east of The Long Water, the Serpentine Bridge and the road running south from the bridge is Hyde Park and everything to the west including the Long Water itself is Kensington Gardens.

By that reckoning Kensington Palace is definitely in Kensington Gardens, and so is the Albert memorial, also the Serpentine Gallery, the Peter Pan statue and the Round Pond.

In Hyde Park proper you'll find Rotten Row, Speaker's Corner, The Serpentine, and the Statue of Achilles. Hope that clears things up....

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to move. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

was: Primary dab

Surely this should be the primary dab at Hyde Park? violet/riga (t) 2 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)

I've set Hyde Park to redirect to Hyde Park, London, as the park in London is arguably the most well-known location. jareha 22:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I now make this official. Golden Graham (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most well know is not the same as the primary usage. For me, it is clearly Hyde Park, New York not to be confused with New Hyde Park, New York which is commonly called Hyde Park. Changing a dab, really needs an extremely strong case. There are way too many places that share this name! Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This must be a joke. No one can suffer from such a restricted cultural perspective as to imagine that Hyde Park, New York could have been named without reference to the primary Hyde Park of the adult world. --Wetman (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • For the record, I went through the articles for the London place that link here. About 80% were actually dabed in the article text. That goes up to about 95% when you count the word London in the same sentence or the sentence on either side of the link. This shows that editors are aware of the need to disambiguate in the text, they just are sloppy with the links. Given the large number of article links here for other uses, dab page is the correct decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • For the record, someone had already run AWB over those. I just did the rest, only about 15-20, including interestingly WP:WRW, of course, it's not policy, but is used as a synonym for Speakers' Corner. Kbthompson (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have to agree with Vegaswikian. – Axman (☏) 13:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The name's been in use since before 1531 (Hyde Manor, since 1066), and all other uses are derived from reference to this specific location. In my book that makes it the primary usage. I accept others mileage may differ, but if they will name their settlements/parks for places in London, they should have the good grace to accept its primogenitor. 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Old age is not the same as primary use. If this change were made, how many readers will be directed to the wrong article. I'll guess too many so this would not be the primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That's not what I said, each of these other settlements were named for this place, which BTW also wins the Google popularity contest. The majority of people would be directed to the correct Hyde Park, a minority would have to hit the dab page link. Kbthompson (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm still don't see any reasoning that Hyde Park, London is the primary use. As documented in the past, Google is simply a popularity contest and the results there are not the same as a primary use determinant here. As I said, the onus here is on those proposing the move to make a clear and convincing case that Hyde Park, London is clearly the primary use and would not cause a large number of readers to be pointed to the incorrect article to kick out the dab page from the primary name! Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I also agree with Vegaswikian. The disagreement here is witness to the ambiguity of the phrase. There are too many regionally common uses to declare London the primary one. Although it is conceivable that every place in the world named Hyde Park was named after the one in London, that alone doesn't make it primary enough to take the unambiguous title. A simple majority of usage is also not enough. In my opinion, a clear 80% would be better. I do think, however, that it is primary enough to be listed first on the dab page. SlackerMom (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment This Hyde Park appears to be the only one chosen for inclusion in the WP for Schools CD, and the vast majority of the other Hyde Parks listed on WP appear to be stubs. Notable exceptions being the two in New York and Chicago. Anyone got a tool for counting the number of wikilinks to a page? This Hyde Park certainly requires the 500 option, whereas the others seem to only require the 100 option. A quick estimate shows:

1. Hyde Park, London - about 450
2. Hyde Park, Chicago - about 270
3. New Hyde Park, New York - about 150
4. Hyde Park, New York - about 140

Since WP is about notability (as opposed to google's beauty contest), don't you think it notable that London's Hyde Park is referenced by more articles than the next two instances? Kbthompson (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that London's Hyde Park is probably the "most notable" of the various usages, but, in your example, of the approximately 1,000 links you've referred to, only 45% were to London. That may be a simple majority, but it's not an overwhelming argument for primary usage. SlackerMom (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another 160 refs to disambiguation moved today - the vast majority to reference this page. They've appeared since the above decision; as I cleared it out then. I only wish that some of the people who argue for moving significant usages to disambiguation would do some of the work in keeping the encyclopaedia straight! (whinge over). Kbthompson (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Embedded vandalism

This article has accrued a certain amount of embedded vandalism, including a vandalised date... --Wetman 13:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

concerts

I removed content about an up and coming concert - I don't think the concert is sufficiently historical, and in the worst case if all concerts were listed, this article would become too large. Suggest creating an additional topic "hyde park, concerts" or some such. mgream 14:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed content about existing concerts. It's only relevant to expand upon the details of the concert when the details are relevant to the park itself, not to the band. For instance, if Queen's 1976 concert was one of its most important, then detail that on the Queen page - since it's a relevant fact for Queen, not a relevant fact for the park. However, the fact that the concert had 150,000 attendees, probably a record for any concert in the park, is relevant.mgream 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Baobab?

"A botanical sensation is the bizarre upside-down tree." Is this a baobab? --Wetman 14:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(I worked it out and edited it in--Wetman (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

aerial photo

would it be possible to get an aerial phot of the park as the opening photo, instead of the one already posted, as this would be an image of the park in its entirety, instead of just one of the park.

• I've added part of an 1833 map that shows the whole park. An aerial shot would be nice too, if anyone has a public domain image. Pointillist (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditlev Frisch

Who is Ditlev Frisch ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.230.246.52 (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a bogus entry, removed. mgream (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)