Talk:List of urban parks by size

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rework this page[edit]

This page would be more useful if it could be sorted, and countries were their own columns. I will do this tonight if no one objects. I don't want my work destroyed. Stidmatt (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me, these are not all *urban* parks.. delete or change title?[edit]

comp.arch (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikipedia's entry for Nairobi National Park has its size as 28,963 acres. Easily makes the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.237.122.177 (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I agree, that this list does not seem to include only "urban" parks. In fact it seems, that most of the list does not fit the definition given by the article ("contained entirely within a city's municipal or metropolitan boundary"). To give a few examples: According to its wikipedia page, the Losiny Ostrov National Park, here listed to lie within Moscow, states "Forest occupied 96.04 km² (83% of area) of the total, of which 30.77 km² (27%) fall within the boundaries of Moscow city". Definately not "contained entirely". The Rouge park, which is listed to be located in Toronto, lies - according to its own wikipedia article - "along the border of Toronto and Pickering" and therefore is not "contained entirely", not even contained partially within a city. I suggest to split the list in two or three different ones: 1) parks which are enclosed by a city entirely, 2) parks which are partially within a cities borders and maybe 3) parks, which are geographically connected to a city. A park like the Central Park in New York and a park like the Table Mountain National Park are two completely different types of parks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.87.141 (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is even more odd when the park is more outside the city than in it. Rouge hardly qualifies as "Toronto" unless we are including the surrounding towns that have been amalgamated into the Toronto census metropolitan area. But def does not qualify as an urban park completely surrounded by city. Kav2001c (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)kav2001c[reply]

The majority of Rouge is in Toronto (like... nearly all of it), although it overlaps into the surrounding towns of Markham and Pickering. If you mean that its in Scarborough (based off your amalgamation statement), that has been a part of the newly incorporated City of Toronto since 1998, and is not considered a municipality in its own right (it hasn't been its own city since 1998 and is very much considered a part of the new City of Toronto... as all the former ones in Metropolitan Toronto were merged). In either case, the parks brought up/overall issue brought up here isn't really an issue anymore, cause the qualifiers for the list were changed to include urban parks within an entire metropolitan area (which would be the Greater Toronto Area), as a number of large urban parks, cross-municipalities.
That said, I do have some issues with some entries on this list... but thats more to do with the entry of nature preserves (i.e. would they count... considering some don't permit entry... which is sorta a requisite for urban parks I'd think). Leventio (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of urban parks by size. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of urban parks by size. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of urban parks by size. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Park systems entries[edit]

Two urban river valley ravine systems comprising multiple contiguous parks were recently removed from this list despite them being listed in the article since mid-2012, shortly after the article was created. I reverted in favour of initiating a discussion first as it isn't clear if the intent behind the article was to include such or not. So, should they be removed or should they remain? I am fine either way. Hwy43 (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I put a note for all the park systems listed highlighting the fact they are park systems and not individual parks (which strictly going by the lead, is what were talking about). I'm in the same boat as you though, if someone feels strongly about their inclusion or removal, I wouldn't really oppose it. But with that in mind, there are a number of park entries which don't necessarily qualify as "urban parks." There are quite a few entires are moreso nature preserves than parks (given their proximities to urban area though, the lines do blur), and in one specific instance (Sacred Falls State Park), its restricted from the public (I know the definitions of urban parks isn't concrete, but access for residents is one I'd imagine). But with all that said, like I said earlier, I'm not opposed to their exclusion or inclusion, but I would suggest splitting the preserves to a separate section/table in the article.Leventio (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appian Way Regional Park[edit]

Appian Way Regional Park is a largest urban park of Europe. I'm sorry, but it's reality, nobody can change this. The End. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlaverità (talk • contribs) 21:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Wlaverità (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wlaverità: First off, the urban largest park on the European continent is Izmaylovsky Park in Moscow. And secondly, no one was contesting that portion of your edit. The reason as to why your edit is being reverted (if you actually bothered to read the edit summary) was because your refactoring the rankings to include the park systems in that list, as opposed to just adding Appian Way Regional Park (which again, is entirely fine, the issue is your refactoring of other park systems into the rankings). Leventio (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wissahickon Valley Park[edit]

Wissahickon Valley Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States is missing 2601:41:4200:5EE0:0:0:0:8071 (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review of listing needed, not all are "urban parks"[edit]

I'd think a review of many of these parks are in order, as I believe some are improperly listed as "urban parks", when their own managing authorities do not classify them as such. For example, the current second placed park, Gatineau Park, while certainly the largest "park" in a metropolitan area in Canada, is not considered to be an "urban park" by its own managing authority (see NCC's urban park listing which does not list Gatineau Park, and their other posting that denotes Leamy Lake Park as the largest "urban park" in the National Capital Region, not Gatineau). Google searching for Gatineau + "urban park" yields no real secondary results.

As of this moment, this article appears moreso to be a listing of "largest parks within a metropolitan area" then an actual listing of largest urban parks. Leventio (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the lead does indeed say the list is not specifically for urban parks, but parks contained within urban(ish) area. I think you will struggle to source all these entries if you want to find an "urban park" label as officially defined. This isn't a standard worldwide term/classification. Urban park itself lists many synonyms. For example, the one entry I added is Mežaparks (park) and there basically aren't any English sources in existence, so there isn't any English "urban park" or synonymous label to be found. I don't know if you can realistically determine this, especially since different countries/municipalities will not have the same definitions in those rare cases where they actually have definitions. I am no more familiar with the topic than this, so just me 2c. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the lead of the article is generic and unspecified with that specific note because I recently edited it to be that way after noticing the initial issue that this entire listing includes parks not classified as urban parks by their own managing authority (full discretion, I also changed the limit from city limits to metropolitan area several years back after I made an earlier note that some entries exceeded their city limits).
In saying that, with regards to what qualifies as an "urban park", there are varying definitions that differ by varying degrees. However, part of the issue isn't even so much the definition, as it is that many of these entries are inappropriately added in the first place as some of these entries are not considered "urban parks" by any definition, nor are they considered urban parks by their own managing authority (one entry, in particular, is a nature preserve that restricts public access... which is quite the opposite of nearly all urban park definitions in that urban parks are publicly accessible.... and this is the icing on the cake of many egregious entries).
With regard to determining a solution to this issue, other Wiki list articles that had to deal with "differing criterions" have typically resolved this by putting in place existing listings/rankings already published in WP:RS (see networth rankings, museum attendance rankings, rail figures, etc.). Not only does this provide readers with the criteria for entry onto the list (which at the moment, appears to be nothing, because even the "metropolitan limit" thing isn't fully adhered to), but it also resolves another glaring issue with this entire article, that there is no actual source within it that provides a listing/ranking... making this entire article WP:OR and WP:SYN of different sources (which flies in the face of Wikipedia's "Three Pillars").
In saying that, going back to the first point about the scope of this article, another way to sidestep the "urban park" definition issue, is if we remove it entirely and moved the article topic to List of largest parks within a metropolitan area (along with reconstructing the lead to better reflect that this is a list of parks in a metro area and not urban parks). In saying that, a page move will still not resolve the OR/SYN issue, but if we did go through with it, it would resolve the need to provide context for what an "urban park" is. Leventio (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any criteria to build this list that are not OR/SYNTH in some way. "Urban park" is country-specific for the few countries that have such term. "Metropolitan" is equally country-specific. I can't think of any criteria that would actually include the obvious examples while also being able to provide a source. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 14:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, a simple solution would be adopting other people's criteria (i.e. other published lists made in other WP:RS), and creating a listing that reflects a ranking/listing published from said reliable source (as is done with other Wikipedia lists with non-specific criterion). Using existing listings already published in other sources would more than rectify the OR/SYN issue. In saying that, if it is the case that such a listing cannot be made without OR/SYNTH, then such a listing has no place on Wikipedia, whose entire basis for articles is on secondary verifiability.
However, at the moment, this list has no real criterion for entry other than "a park in a metropolitan area" (and that last part isn't even completely adhered to). A list with no governing definition of what an "urban park" is/has no real criterion is not an actual listing at all. This is simply now just a directory of parks in metro areas (which if it is, the article should be moved to reflect that it includes multiple parks of varying definition). Leventio (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's my point -- there are no such worldwide listings, are there? —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 16:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, that's sort of also my point. If no such lists for urban parks exist, why does this list exist on Wikipedia at all? Wikipedia is ultimately a reflection of what's already published, so this really shouldn't even exist as an article as its OR & SYNTH.
In saying that, what I was inferring with my second point was that this could mostly be rectified if the article was reframed to something more generic and moved to something like List of largest parks by size. This would remove the undefined "urban" criterion (which presently, is just a hobbling of dozens of editor's individual interpretations from the sounds of it, thus making this moreso a greenspace directory and less of an organized list), and would allow us to use real WP:RS (which unlike urban parks, there are many published lists on just the largest parks in the world. Leventio (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have no real solution or stake in this. It sounds like a mess so I wouldn't want to tackle it. I agree there's a problem of SYNTH here. And I agree there are some ways to improve, although I cannot say how effective they may be. It sounds like anything outside international standards/definitions (e.g. list of national parks) will have a problem of editor interpretation. But I agree tightening inclusion to better-defined criteria is always the way to go with lists. I guess I support if you want to take some action in that direction. Anyway, as I said, I'm not really familiar with the topic and it's just me 2c without looking into it much more. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 22:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holosiivskyi National Nature Park[edit]

Holosiivskyi National Natureis missing. It's located inside Kyiv and it's huge: wikipedia.org This park is located in within Kyiv city and it's huge: 4525 hectares according to Wikipedia. Must have been listed 18th 176.38.1.197 (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sounds like an urban park from the description, rather a generic nature park. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 09:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_urban_parks_by_size&oldid=1203701938"