Talk:Hagley Park, Christchurch

Citation needed

I don't know how to add citations, but here is one for the golf course: http://www.ccc.govt.nz/cityleisure/parkswalkways/popularparks/hagleypark.aspx --165.84.106.5 (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - have added it. Schwede66 05:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hagley 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/20100522115241/http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/HagleyParkMgtPlan2007_ALL_LR-popularparks.pdf to http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/HagleyParkMgtPlan2007_ALL_LR-popularparks.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610060508/http://www.ccc.govt.nz/cityleisure/parkswalkways/popularparks/hagleypark.aspx to http://www.ccc.govt.nz/cityleisure/parkswalkways/popularparks/hagleypark.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404232917/http://www.ccc.govt.nz/Parks/BotanicGardens/ to http://www.ccc.govt.nz/Parks/BotanicGardens/

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) 22:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Changed name

The name of this article has been changed to distinguish it from Hagley Park, Worcestershire, which is presently being rewritten. A further reason is that the English Hagley Park, after which the Christchurch park is named, has historical primacy. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: I'm unsure about historical primacy to be honest. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC may well apply for the New Zealand park. Given that there are only two topics of this name, a simple hatnote as per WP:ONEOTHER could do. Either way, this is controversial, needs to be discussed to find consensus first, and I shall thus revert the move. By all means, feel free to initiate a formal move request. Schwede66 18:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Move request

Since 2015 Schwede66 has been resistant to the title Hagley Park, Christchurch, on the grounds that it constitutes the primary topic and does not need to be distinguished by the place name. Though there are only two Hagley Park titles so far, I see that there is also a Hagley recreational park in Hagley, Tasmania, and that this used to be the grounds of a member of the Hagley (Worcestershire) Lyttleton family. Christchurch's park also got its name through a connection with another from that family. Hagley Park thus has not only primacy in time but also topographical primacy in that both the other parks in the southern hemisphere were named after it. Another claim to fame for the Worcestershire park is that it set an 18th century fashion in natural landscaping, was a leading tourist destination then and was the subject of many literary tributes. It makes sense, therefore, to disambiguate the two articles and create a precedent should another article be written about the park in Tasmania. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: That's not how you initiate a formal move request; please follow these instructions. And please note the spelling of the Lyttelton family. Schwede66 22:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Your courtesy and helpfulness is an inspiration to all. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Hagley Park → Hagley Park, Christchurch – Per WP:NCNZ there is an actual ambiguity with Hagley Park, Worcestershire and a potential ambiguity with any artice that might be written about the recreation park in Hagley, Tasmania. Both these were named because of local connections with members of the Lyttelton family, creators of the original Hagley Park in Worcestershire in the 18th century. That fact, its high reputation then and the many literary allusions to it, give it primacy in time and possibly in importance. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support per the nominator's rationale. ╠╣uw [talk] 21:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support (the name Hagley Park becoming a DAB and the articles being "Hagley Park, <location>"). In contrast with, say, "San Francisco", "New York", "London", etc. there is no hugely overriding prime candidate. Even "Durham" here in England, historically original, changed (reluctantly!) a few years ago into a DAB, with the city article renamed to "Durham England".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Feline Hymnic (talk • contribs)
• Oppose for a variety of reasons. First up, let me say that the current state of this article does not do the topic any justice whatsoever. I've had a look on Google Books and Google News to see what I can find. On Google Books, the results are reasonably even. It's different with Google News but that may be massively affected by "Worcestershire" not being a common term mentioned in connection with the English park. My guess is, though, that the Christchurch park is constantly in the news because it's right next to the central business district of a city of reasonable size (380,000 population) and the park thus functions as one of the city's major events centres. Next, I looked what Lonely Planet had to say. The Christchurch park gets a mention as one of the top sights in the city but I need to point out that the number 1 sight, the Christchurch Botanic Gardens, is also located within Hagley Park. And the grounds for the number 4 experience, Canterbury Museum, was carved off Hagley Park back in the day. By all accounts, Lonely Planet seems to give the Christchurch park quite some attention. I couldn't find anything about the English Hagley Park in Lonely Planet; did I not look hard enough? As it stands, I suggest that the Christchurch park is the Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC and ambiguity is dealt with by hatnotes in that case.

Search term	GNews	GBooks
christchurch "hagley park"	4700	4760
worcestershire "hagley park"	0	3700

Happy to discuss this further or elaborate some more if that's desired. Schwede66 04:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support current title fails WP:CRITERIA In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Support The one in NZ is probably the most likely topic to be searched for but as the English one is the original, it would probably be better to have it as a DAB, given the 2nd criteria of PTOPIC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support the rename and also to create Hagley Park as a disambiguation. Ajf773 (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  There already is Hagley Park (disambiguation), I have changed this to a multi move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:46, 10 August 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.

Hatnote

@Schwede66 seems to have a WP:OWN problem and persistently removes the hatnote, citing WP:NAMB as his justification. There one reads "The presence or absence of hatnotes in articles with disambiguated titles has been a contentious issue, and this guideline doesn't prescribe one way or the other." @Icarusgeek recently thanked me for undoing Schwede's earlier high-handed deletion of the hatnote and some contributors to the discussion above also seem to advise disambiguation (WP:DAB). It is frustrating to come up against a poor loser who will not honour the clear will of other editors. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You have taken the above quote out of context. It says in the above guideline: "It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous." It then gives an example to illustrate that. It then says: "A hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous." An example is given to illustrate the point where ambiguity continues to exist. The case of Hagley Park fits the first example. Since the title has been disambiguated, there is no ambiguity any longer and a hatnote is thus not needed. Which is why User:Crouch, Swale removed it before you reinstated it. It's a bit rich for you to accuse both users who removed the hatnote of owning the article when you are the one user who is reverting both of us on the same issue. And for your "poor loser" label, I suggest this statement says more about your attitude than anything else. Schwede66 21:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

From WP:NAMB: ...this guideline doesn't prescribe one way or the other. In other words, claiming WP:NAMB as a definitive judgement either way is inappropriate. The hatnote is not for you or me as page editors; that's irrelevant. Rather, we must look beyond ourselves to the reader. The purpose of the hatnote is to help the reader wishing to find out about "Topic", who has ended up at one article "Topic (foo)", but realises it is the wrong one. The hatnote quickly, easily and conveniently helps them get to their intended "Topic (bar)". Look around lots and lots of geographic articles which share a common placename; they generally have hatnotes for this very reason. There are various "Hagley Park..." places. The hatnote provides a quick simple way for the reader who lands on the wrong one to find the one they originally wanted.

Let's ask the opposite question: can anyone provide any actual, quantifiable harm that the presence of the hatnote might inflict on the article? I can't see any harm. And I've outlined the real, tangible benefit. I vote to keep the hatnote for those reasons. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• This would seem to be a case where the guideline says the hatnote is not desired. They could be added to any article that is disambiguated and they just clutter it unnecessarily. The whole point of this move request was to remove the ambiguity which has now been done. To be quite honest Schwede66 provided strong evidence that this one is primary and I nearly opposed but unlike Hamilton College we didn't have any view stats and I thought the argument about the Worcestershire one being the original made it sensible to have no primary topic. But I think calling Schwede66 a poor loser and accusing of ownership issues is entirely inappropriate and if anyone has had the short straw its Schwede. I'd note that I removed the hatnote after fixing the links, I didn't even check the history and assumed it had just been left, I didn't realize it had already been restored once. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

My preference would be for the hat note - I find them useful in general, and this one in particular (and thanked @Sweetpool50 to that effect). And I do miss this one in particular. I have read the above conversation and can see the argument against but I still think it's helpful for people who click thru to HP (Chc) to see the hatnote. Please keep itIcarusgeek (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)