Talk:Sutton Park, West Midlands

Phoenix Park

Deleted the irrelevant and childish mention of the Phoenix Park. Sutton Park is a suburban park, and may well be larger than the Phoenix Park, but the Phoenix Park is a city park. It is about 200m from a main central mainline Railway Station, and 300m from the Guinness Brewery, and the gates just metres from the city's River Liffey. Sutton Park is 10km north of Birmingham, more of a semi-rural suburban nature reserve. Not comparable at all to Phoenix Park. Phoenix Park can only be compared to the likes of Central Park in New York. (Unsigned comment by User:83.70.45.127

You may dispute the comparison, but calling it childish is unfair and unhelpful. Sutton Park is within metres of the centre of (former) Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield (now part of Birmingham), including a major shpopping mall, a large railway station, etc. It is now wholly within the City, and all of its boundaries face housing. Andy Mabbett 19:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, to clear up some confusion. Pheonix Park is Europe's largest city centre. This park or RIchmond Park can't really be classed as city centre parks.

3/1/06:

How about some pictures of the park rather than just a vague map? Also a thorough description of the varied terrain would be much more interesting than the speed limits on the access roads: some people really seem to be attempting to make the park sound like a city centre with all sorts of traffic calming measures. In reality, that doesn’t capture the essence of the park. Why do people visit? Perhaps because it is a relatively safe, reasonably well managed area where people who live in Sutton or Bham can completely escape regular ‘city life’. Perhaps it is well used because of its central location ie. within walking distance of Little Aston Park, Four Oaks Park, many areas of Sutton Coldfield, areas of Kingstanding. A more detailed description of the activities that actual users undertake would also help portray the function of the park (eg. regular cross country cycle meetings, fishing activities, golf, dog walking, joggers) ie. Try to be positive about the park. It has so much to offer, and yet you are portraying it in such a negative manner (eg. litter, crime). Also, where is this donkey sanctuary? Exmore ponies perhaps?

This is your opportunity to tell people all about the park; please don’t waste people’s time with speed limits!

You are right to draw attention to the article's imbalance between personal free activities and the commercial activities that have crept into the Park over the years. I have added a short sentence about this, near the top. However, on cars and speeds, I think it's fairly important to mention it. It's an important aspect of the Park's recent history, and gets even more important when you round a corner to find a car swinging around it at speed! Similarly, major crimes such as arson have a big impact on the quality of the Park. You are right about maps, but the good ones are commercial. We might find a pre-1925 one that is public domain? 4th March 2006.

Size

Does size matter? Well, there seems to be some dispute over which is the largest urban park. The article currently suggests that Richmond Park is larger, however comparing [1] and [2] it's not so clear, due to the impreciseness of the published figures. Richmond Park's website claims "almost 1000 hectares (2500 acres)", however 1000ha is actually 2471 acres. In either case, the number sounds rather rounded-off, and how close to "almost" is it? Sutton Park's website gives "over 970 hectares (2,400 acres)" as the size, however 970ha is actually 2396a. The figures therefore seem dangerously close and both very imprecise - does anyone have exact figures to compare? DWaterson 01:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha, found figures for Sutton Park in [3]: area is 900.1ha. Rather lower than the claimed figure... DWaterson 01:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

According to a House of Commons written answer from the Head of the Royal Parks service (so pretty definitive, I guess) Richmond Park is 955 hectares [4], definitely smaller than 970 hectares but definitely bigger than 900 hectares. JimmyGuano 05:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I will update the respective pages to reflect the corrected figures. Richmond Park wins, it seems :) DWaterson 17:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As the author of a Sutton Park website which used to give the area as "some 2,400 acres (970 hectares)" perhaps I can add some comments. At least since the 1922 "Guide to Sutton Park", all of the literature which contains an area appears to use the figure of 2,400 acres. This includes the latest booklet published by the Birmingham City Council (undated but post-2000). The 970 hectares figure simply comes from converting 2,400 acres. However, as noted above, the 2002-2007 management plan (the link seems to be dead but I have a paper copy) gives the area of the Park as a whole as 900.1 hectares (less for the SSSI and the NNR). Part of the discrepancy may lie in whether the Boldmere Golf Course (to the south of the Park) is included or not. However, as best as I can estimate the area of the Park, it is at most 930 hectares (I got this by the old technique of accurately weighing a cutout of the Park from a printed out OS map and comparing the weight to that of the largest number of included full 1 kilometre squares). So I've amended my website and believe that the Wikipedia page is accurate and most of the literature is wrong. [Incidentally, Bagnall's 1876 flora of the Park gives the area as 3,500 acres!] Peter coxhead (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 11:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Sutton Park → Sutton Park, West Midlands – DAB per views [[5]] while this gets the most views, it (and its station etc) don't get significantly more views than the others. The Yorkshire one gets over half as many despite the fact that there is no hatnote. I suggest using "West Midlands" as the DAB because, per WP:UKPLACE I don't think its unquestionably part of Birmingham since it wasn't in the county borough and its also not clearly in Royal Sutton Coldfield either. There are also many others. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose There are not "many others" in the UK. Sutton Park is a National Nature Reserve, Site of Special Scientific Interest, and Scheduled Ancient Monument. It's thus clearly the most important park by this name in the UK. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support @Peter coxhead: "most important" is not how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC works. To be PT requires "more important than all others combined". Page views click as above shows that this park fails that test. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says no such thing. The criterion you quote only applies to primary with respect to usage. It also says "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors".

  My comment also applies if it is agreed that "Sutton Park" needs to be disambiguated against parks of the same name in other countries, when the title could be "Sutton Park, UK". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  Sutton Park, UK wouldn't be sufficient to dab from Sutton Park, Yorkshire, etc. --woodensuperman 10:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Please look again: "more likely than all the other topics combined" In ictu oculi (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This applies only to primary with respect to usage, as is clearly stated there. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom. WP:NOPRIMARY. Also, where are hatnotes and Sutton Park (disambiguation)? --woodensuperman 10:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  I didn't bother to add them since the article may be moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think it clearly is at the very least the most important park of this name in the UK. The fact of the most important World Scout Jamboree ever (50th anniversary, combined with Rover Moot and Indaba) also adds to its notability. I would however be happy about a move to "Sutton Park (UK)". --Bduke (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I'll support re comments below. --Bduke (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• It should not be "Sutton Park, UK" (or "Sutton Park (UK)"), per WP:UKPLACE we don't use UK to disambiguate and Sutton Park, Yorkshire is also in the UK. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It is probably the most famous, and certainly the largest, Sutton Park, but the current situation is not helpful for readers looking for other Sutton Parks. Move to Sutton Park, West Midlands, and make Sutton Park a dab page. BabelStone (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Page views clearly demonstrate that there is no primary topic. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

---

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