Talk:Multistorey car park

message: Whirley-gig??? Does anyone use this term?
Jackal24 08:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colloquialism 

message: Should there be a section added about Notable Parking Structures? For instance, listing the world's tallest or highest capacity parking structures? --Zegoma beach 12:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Parking Structures 

message: What parking garage has the most underground levels in the world and how many feet underground does it go? This would be worth adding to Wikipedia. --70.179.170.119 07:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deepest Parking Garage 

message: :Add any additional comments:
*Parking garage is probably more accurate since not all garages have more then one story.  So maybe this is more then a UK/US issue. Vegaswikian 19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.</div>
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 19:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Multi-storey car park really is not a great title for several reasons. The arguments for keeping the article at its current title cited WP:ENGVAR as their support. However, they used follow the dialect of the first contributor, which is really a last resort. If following WP:ENGVAR, then the article should follow the established style and try to find words that are common to all. Therefore, "storey" should be replaced with a more dialect neutral word such as "level," and "car park" should be parking lot instead to maintain continuity throughout Wikipedia. 65.197.192.130 00:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I search for "parking garage" - I end up here.  So I don't see the big deal.  Rklawton 12:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because something is at one title, it doesn't mean it can't be changed; thats the whole point of Wikipedia. I didn't say that the article should be moved to "parking garage"; personally, I think it should be changed to "Multi level parking lot" (to follow parking lot and have some uniformity on wikipedia) or "parking structure," which is a very accurate description of the article. As I have stated before, "multi-level car park" has a couple of words that couple be changed so as not to show preference to one dialect. 65.197.192.130 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this has just been discussed so we now need to move on. The present name at least has the advantage of being meaningful in some jurisdictions which hybrid forms don't, bearing in mind that 'parking lot' is not a meaningful term in the UK, for example. TerriersFan 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What was just discussed was moving the article to parking garage, which is not what I am talking about. I am trying to find a term that doesn't show preference to one dialect. Car park isn't widely used if used at all in the US. Parking lot, however, is the term used on wikipedia. If having parking lot/car park in the title is an issue, then a title without those terms should be found. 65.197.192.130 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this issue is quite dead yet. Multi-storey car park is a term that as an American I can discern the function but it is highly specific to the UK itself (ie: Storey instead of story). Many UK colonies today are using both UK spellings and US spellings and there is no preference or requirement for either in most colonies. As a result only in that small country will you find the term multi-storey car park as an official term. I think most of the English would world see it as a descriptive term but not exactly a short concise term which English would prefer to have. Other problems include the fact that "park" denotes a specific function, that is greenspace which is why the present tense declension "parking" is used "ie where is the parking at?" Added with the universal use of garage for an auxiliary storage house thus was born "parking garage." Also "Car park" sounds quaint to American ears, for example we have "dog park", "tot park", "walking park" which all denote specifically the function of movement within a geographic body (ie: animals, kids, humans, etc) and NOT storing or stopping something for a short period of time. All these notes explain why we simply cannot accept this UK term as the universal variant for them all because its the furthest from a universal term. For example is the "car park" the actual deck or the structure itself? What does it refer to? I doubt anyone says multi-storey car park completely. And it's a given that a parking garage IS multiple stories otherwise it becomes say a "parking field" "parking area" or as we say a "parking lot." Can a "car park" be only one-level then?(just saw parking lot) There are multiple inherent problems in this term and I doubt we can accept the UK variant blindly. .:DavuMaya:. 23:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of the Article needs to be changed

message: :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. 
Multi-storey car park → Parking structure — The last move failed because some people did not want the page moved at all and those who did want it moved thought that the proposed title, Multi-level parking lot, did not fit the article. The new request is to move the article to Parking structure. There are a couple resons for this title:
*It was the original article title about this subject
*It describes the subject of the article accurately
*It does not use dialect specific terms, unlike Multi-storey car park
*It was title perfered by those who thought that the article should be moved —65.197.192.130 16:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support- See the reasoning posted above.  65.197.192.130 16:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Actually, it is used by civil engineers and government building codes. Also, it recieves more hits in Google test than "multi-storey car park". If you really wanted to go with the most popular term, parking garage should be used. You may think that, logically, it shouldn't refer to above ground structures, but in general usage, it does. Why do you think that your variation of English should get preference? The situation on this page is somewhat similar to the argument of airplane vs. aeroplane; it was decided that the neutral fixed-wing aircraft should be used. 65.197.192.130 17:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment Actually "parking structure" does seem to be used in the western USA, especially California, whose inhabitants possibly may not even suspect that the term is not universal in the USA. Michael Hardy 20:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Does no one else see the bias in multi-storey car park? What reasoning do you have for keeping it at the current title? 65.197.192.130 21:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment "Multi-storey car park" is entirely different from any terminology I am accustomed to, but yet it seems self-explanatory and inoffensive to me. Michael Hardy 22:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment: "Multi-storey car park " is the common name here in England. Anthony Appleyard 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CommentI don't doubt it; it should (and is) be mentioned in the article. However, it has a couple of terms which are biased to British spelling, when there are alternitives available. 65.197.192.130 16:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you seriously think anyone would be confused by the term 'parking structure'? The way, the truth, and the light 17:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
The current title is biased by ENGVAR standards, but coming up with an appropriate title is proving difficult. So far, two requests to change the title have failed. 23:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In my view this is a case where common sense and a regard to the profitable use of all our times comes into play. Until the Anon IP got his/her teeth stuck into this, folks just got on with editing this article. It is hardly high profile and who cares if the title is technically biased? We are now on the third RM and this is becoming a ludicrous waste of time. There are many important contentious issues on WP (and I should be delighted to list some) and this is not one of them. This should now be finally closed so we can all move on. TerriersFan 22:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 07:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move to Parking structure

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support- See the reasoning posted above.  65.197.192.130 16:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Actually, it is used by civil engineers and government building codes. Also, it recieves more hits in Google test than "multi-storey car park". If you really wanted to go with the most popular term, parking garage should be used. You may think that, logically, it shouldn't refer to above ground structures, but in general usage, it does. Why do you think that your variation of English should get preference? The situation on this page is somewhat similar to the argument of airplane vs. aeroplane; it was decided that the neutral fixed-wing aircraft should be used. 65.197.192.130 17:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Actually "parking structure" does seem to be used in the western USA, especially California, whose inhabitants possibly may not even suspect that the term is not universal in the USA. Michael Hardy 20:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Does no one else see the bias in multi-storey car park? What reasoning do you have for keeping it at the current title? 65.197.192.130 21:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment "Multi-storey car park" is entirely different from any terminology I am accustomed to, but yet it seems self-explanatory and inoffensive to me. Michael Hardy 22:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment: "Multi-storey car park " is the common name here in England. Anthony Appleyard 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CommentI don't doubt it; it should (and is) be mentioned in the article. However, it has a couple of terms which are biased to British spelling, when there are alternitives available. 65.197.192.130 16:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you seriously think anyone would be confused by the term 'parking structure'? The way, the truth, and the light 17:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
The current title is biased by ENGVAR standards, but coming up with an appropriate title is proving difficult. So far, two requests to change the title have failed. 23:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view this is a case where common sense and a regard to the profitable use of all our times comes into play. Until the Anon IP got his/her teeth stuck into this, folks just got on with editing this article. It is hardly high profile and who cares if the title is technically biased? We are now on the third RM and this is becoming a ludicrous waste of time. There are many important contentious issues on WP (and I should be delighted to list some) and this is not one of them. This should now be finally closed so we can all move on. TerriersFan 22:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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.</div>
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 07:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: You know, I've lived in Canada for most of my life, and the term "parkade" isn't specific to multi-storey parking lots - plenty of outdoor, unsheltered parking lots are called parkades. Risker 01:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parkade? 

message: So, i read the last move's comments and they are rediculous. Just because multi-storey car oark was made first doesnt mean that parking garage is wrong. Lets do the google search check: Multi-storey car park-435,000. Parking garage-4,600,000. Also the name is misleading, car park sounds like the multi-storey (id prefer story) car park actually parks your car. parking garage infers that this is a garage where you park. and the enclosed space problem, as the US government puts is at [www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/glossary.html] A garage is "a space large enough to accommodate a car, with a door opening at least 6 feet wide and 7 feet high" parking garages do have doors, how else to you get in? it doesnt say that it is enclosed. MOVE THIS PAGE71.174.200.210 (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where I now reside, in conventional usage "parking garage" means an indoor facility, whereas the topic of this article also includes open-air parking facilities.  And you should learn that "infers" is not a synonym of "implies".  To infer is to draw a conclusion, not to entail one. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed ad-nauseum, and each and every discussion has reached either a "don't move it" conclusion, or no conclusion. Fact of the matter is, this is just yet another example of variations between British and American English, and WP:ENGVAR makes it very clear that if an article has evolved using one type of English, it should remain as such, unless there are strong reasons otherwise - no strong reasons have thus far been cited. TheIslander 00:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both the above comments. We really have better things to do than reopen this again! This has been the title through the page's evolution and if I can live with Elevator rather than lift others can live with this one :-) TerriersFan (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So well put - if there's any case to change this to parking garage, there's more of a case to change Elevator to Lift, so how's about we just respect the differences and leave both as they are. TheIslander  —Preceding comment was added at 02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Parking Garage 

message: The following illustrations were recently uploaded and might be useful in the article. /Lokal_Profil 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations 

message: I'd like to request a new title picture. The picture needs to show the interior of a multi-story car park itself and not an exit ramp. Can anyone please help? Thank you.--Gg53000 (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: why changing? If it needs to be changed, don't you think that the view from exterior is much better to give an overview of the subject and be in the lead section? Interior won't give much of the view for multi-story. Z22 (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New title picture 

message: Any record of deaths or injuries in multi-storey car parks, through vehicles driving into unmanned lift-shafts? Valetude (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidents? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Multi-storey car 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/20060623002621/http://preservationchicago.org/risk/lasalle.html to http://www.preservationchicago.org/risk/lasalle.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090603191722/http://csumc.wisc.edu/wep/Words.html to http://csumc.wisc.edu/wep/Words.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201235526/http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ibc/2012/icod_ibc_2012_4_sec006.htm to http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ibc/2012/icod_ibc_2012_4_sec006.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Shouldn't 'Multistorey' in the title and intro paragraph be hyphenated? It is in the body text 149.5.89.232 (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphenation? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The redirect Multistorey has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Okmrman (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Multistorey]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]