Talk:Rock Creek Park

message: This article only mentions the portion of Rock Creek Park in the District of Columbia.  Only half of the park is in the District (the half under the management of the National Park Service).  The other half of the park is in Montgomery County, Maryland under the management of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC).  These portions of the park include Lake Needwood, Lake Frank, and Meadowside Nature Center.  The Rock Creek Trail begins at Lake Needwood and follows along the creek all the way to the National Zoo.  This is important information about the park, not included in the article.
151.200.22.73 06:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Montgomery County

message: could we please have a better, more detailed map that shows the whole length of the park?  (instead of what we have now, which is just a general map of the USA that shows approximately where DC is?) --thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.30.65 (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: need new map

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject class rating

message: I don't know why anybody insists on comparing the largest park in DC to Central Park, which is only NYC's fifth-largest park. If you're going to compare the size of Rock Creek to Central Park, it's fair to also compare it to NYC's largest park.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.126.245 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a size contest.  It's a description comparing Rock Creek to the well known Central Park.  Rock Creek is smaller than a *lot* of urban parks in the United States but this is not the place to list them.  In fact there is an entirely separate article devoted to size rankings of urban parks, here.  The original comparison was more apt and I will be changing it back.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparative Size. 

message: I plan to clean up the article, time permitting, in the coming days.  A lot of the references have gone dead, and they weren't really that well organized to begin with (some never purported to link to anything) and I hope to sort all that out.  The "Administrative History" document, which I've re-located and linked in a few places already, is all by itself a sufficient source for nearly every fact in the article; but its kind of hard to peruse on line and finding the right page, and right URL, is a bit laborious.  Other NPS pages are helpful too and I hope to sprinkle them in as appropriate.  Anyhow, the main point of this note is to beg the indulgence of other editors in the short term as I pin down the references a bit better.  I'm also hoping to figure out a way to artfully weave together the unfortunate double meaning of "Rock Creek Park" employed by the NPS - the term refers of course to the actual 1700+ acre urban park, but NPS also describes the 98 other often non-contiguous, unrelated properties under Rock Creek Park administration unit  as "Rock Creek Park" as well and it's - well, confusing.  Bear with me please - thanks!  JohnInDC (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Protected_areas#IUCN_designations_removed_from_11_articles.  I do not believe the IUCN designations should have been removed from the 11 articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUCN designation removals 

message: The map labeled "Map showing the location of Rock Creek Park" does not show the location of the park.
Or more accurately: It shows the park and many other things, but it neglects to label where the park is on the map.
Even if we assume it is one of the green areas on the map, there are many green areas, and it is totally unclear which one is Rock Creek Park.2601:200:C000:1A0:746F:5F97:36B5:809F (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathetically useless map 

message: More than half of the introduction of this article is devoted to the question of the administrative purview of the unit of the NPS that oversees the park.  Meanwhile, there is no summary of the largest section of the body (on multi-use trails), omission of the most interesting historical details, and limited geographic description.  The administrative sentence should probably just be removed, and summaries of the rest of the body content included.  I don't have time to do this right now but I hope to come back to it in the future -- with luck maybe someone else will get there first? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks User:PRRfan, that looks much better. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead does not accurately summarize the body