Talk:South Downs National Park

message: Why should this be separate from the South Downs main article? The SDNP comprises almost all of the South Downs and it is illogical to take the information here away from it IMO Peter Shearan (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Weak oppose. I have no strong feelings either way but I think it is true that the park will not cover the whole of the Downs, but will include chalk areas not traditionally thought of as part of the South Downs (the downs of East Hampshire west of the closure of the Weald) and non-chalk areas that are definitely not. An example where this can cause confusion is "North Wessex Downs" (who?) which is actually about the artificial "North Wessex Downs AONB" but has been renamed. Various "real" places such as the Vale of Pewsey were then turned into redirects to it, because the AONB includes them (I've since addressed this), and it has possibly inhibited people from writing articles about real places such as the Marlborough Downs etc. In a South Downs National Park article I would expect to find stuff about the responsible bodies, arguments about establishment, boundaries etc, while the South Downs article should be about the geography and geology of the actual place regardless of this. As they stand the articles probably should be merged, but ideally both should be expanded to cover different aspects. Pterre (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: 02:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The south downs are now officially a national park, this article now needs revising. 

message: The National Park actually is coming into effect as of April 1st, although the full administration, planning powers are another year away.  The Sussex Downs AONB and East Hampshire AONB cease to exist.
There is some work to be done in updating and inserting references to the National Park in articles describing places that are in the Park where appropriate.
I note the question above about two articles, South Downs and this National Park one.  My suggestion would be that in due course, South Downs should contain details of the status and extent of the Park, in the same way as for most other National Parks such as Peak District etc.  I then suggest that this article would be renamed Creation of the South Downs National Park which has a substantial 12-year-long history, some of which is currently found at Western Weald.  Any comments welcomed.  Sussexonian (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  March-April 2010 

message: I'd agree with Pterre above that it would be desirable to keep two separate but closely-linked articles given that they are not one and the same thing geographically. For most NPs in the UK it makes pefect sense to have a single article for the geographical area and the designated landscape as they closely coincide bu there are exceptions. I've argued for two articles for the Brecon Beacons (where there is currently just the one) and a similar brief discussion has been had at Grand Canyon. There are good arguments for separate treatment of The Cairngorms and the Cairngorms National Park - which they currently have though the latter article is in need of improvement.
Does anyone know if any guidelines have been drawn up by Wikipedians who have considered these issues in more depth?  A separate article could be written about the creation of the SDNP although for myself I think it would fit better as a major section within an expansion of the existing SDNP article given that it's an essential part of that topic. Geopersona (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Designated landscapes covering areas beyond their named location

message: I've uploaded a location map of the South Downs to Commons (shown to right). I have not created an associated  template, but this can easily be done if desired. 
If this is created, it allow enable creation a map of the South Downs similar to the one under construction at Talk:Dartmoor#Location map, and could be used in related articles (see this example). Hope people find it useful.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. Thanks for that.--Charles (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location map 

message: Does anyone know how to fix that error? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate overflow in infobox 

message: I added ==See also== * Wiston House today. Wiston House is in the park, and has a link to the park. There could be a bit more detail about Wiston House added to this article.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiston House as a "See also" 

message: This article says that Arundel is inside the National Park, but the article on Aundel says it's outside!
Looking at the map on the National Park website, the boundary goes through Arundel. For example, the castle is inside.
So both articles are inaccurate! Mdrb55 (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arundel