Talk:Country park

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles 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.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Change of subtitles[edit]

I like the older subtitles better. I intend the revert the unexplained anonymous change unless someone can persuade me otherwise... Naturenet 10:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like these subtitles better personally, they're more succinct. -- Joolz 21:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the newer titles also, they are more consistent with other articles. Why do you prefer the older ones? Succinctness is desirable.--Cyberjunkie 15:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I agree shorter is better. But not at the cost of meaning. Ok, for History I take your point. It's obviously the history of country parks and should stay as it is. The other two, however, I think are indeed shorter, but in shortness, are also less clear, particularly Raison d'etre which is not something that every reader will understand. It's the sort of phrase that people (like me) who write interpretive material for country parks are taught to exclude and replace with simpler wording. Amenities is a bit jargony, just too civic and dull, and does not encompass the whole subject of the subsection. I'd be happy to go with some sort of alternative wording if anyone can suggest a good one - I'm not particularly attached to the old ones as such. Naturenet 09:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the "simple English" encyclopædia. It is perfectly acceptable to use terms such as "raison d'être" and "amenities", and these terms correspond directly to the discussion of their respective sections. Personally, I can't think of a better term to use than "raison d'être". As for amenities, it's hardly jargon, and I think it should remain. But "facilities" or "typical elements/composition" might be alternatives. The last paragraph of the "Amenities" section might need to be moved or excised. The point is, by using formal language we are encouraging readers to expand their vocabulary and knowledge - as an encyclopædia is intended to.--Cyberjunkie 10:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. OK then. Naturenet 21:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

; )--Cyberjunkie 04:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with National Parks[edit]

I removed this text

The main purpose of Country Parks is recreation, and as such they are distinct from National Parks, where recreation is secondary to the aim of conservation.

because I'm not sure it's quite true, although there is something in it. National parks are governed in the balance of conservation and recreation by the Sandford Principle, and it's not true to say that conservation invariable prevails over recreation. Country parks are not so governed, and although they may have been set up with recreation firmly in mind there are now some country parks where conservation undoubtedly takes precedence over recreation on some occasions. So, in short, it's not as simple as that. I'd say that a far more fundamental difference between CPs and NPs in England and Wales is that CPs are almost always owned entirely by a public body and are open to the public. NPs are not necessarily either.Naturenet | Talk 15:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Country 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305221733/http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/countryside/byelaws.htm to http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/countryside/byelaws.htm

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) 08:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]