This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-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.
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.
At the end of the previous section as on a graphic at the start of the 1900-1960 section it is stated the flock of sheep were moved to different locations in 1934. The previous section says "Upstate", and the graphic indicates they were moved to Brooklyn. I'm fairly sure no one considers Brooklyn upstate from Manhattan:) Were they moved to Brooklyn and THEN to some undisclosed upstate farm? This seems contradictory as it is currently written. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I just noticed that too, I will investigate.Alexschmidt711 (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC) I couldn't find a mention of the farm upstate outside of Wikipedia. Will fix.Alexschmidt711 (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Some of the photos in this article, including the main photo of the article, employ a really horrible-looking, badly-done tone-mapping/local contrast enhancement ("HDR") effect, seemingly from someone who has newly discovered how to do this in Photoshop. It looks tacky and unprofessional in my humble opinion. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
My eye agrees that the heavily adulterated fountain picture is horrible, and the lead picture is not good. Suitable images, including ones where tone mapping had a good result, are plentiful in Commons:Category:Bethesda Fountain and other parts of the Commons Central Park category tree. Since many of the pictures there are mine, and many are used in other articles, I am reluctant to pick among the candidates but I do encourage our thoughtful fellow editors to make a selection.
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: not moved. There's no support for this proposal. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose This is the primary topic. Unless there's a long history of incorrect incoming links to this article, I don't see any reason to move it. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 19:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
oppose unless evidence is shown that other "Central Parks" are commonly referred to as "Central Park" Deunanknute (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
There are. Nom pipe-linked the dab page in the nom (removed now for clarity) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It may fit the definition of primary topic with respect to usage now, but in terms of long-term significance there are so many new places named Central Park (disambiguation) that one may soon become equally as, if not more, well known as this one that it becomes necessary to disambiguate between the two, as well as the rest.
Besides, using common sense this Central Park is unambiguous in New York only and may most often refers tp other things elsewhere - if a new Central Park (skyscraper) is being built in some city, residents will imply the name Central Park to refer to that skyscraper and not the New York park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Some Gadget Geek (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
If and when another "Central Park" becomes or even approaches the notability of this one, disambiguation should be looked into. Doing it now approaches WP:BALL. As far as a new Central Park (skyscraper), has this ever actually caused any confusion, particularly with respect to Wikipedia? What about the many places that are not immediately local to a "central park"; would the people in these areas get confused if you referred to "Central Park" without clarifying New York, or would they assume this is the one being referred to? Obviously these questions don't have concrete answers, but it appears as if most editors, so far, would agree with this assessment. Can you show any evidence to the contrary? Deunanknute (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Clear primary topic, even to a non-American such as myself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - The Centeral Park in Manhattan is clearly the primary topic of "Centeral Park". CookieMonster755(talk) 01:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, guys. Central Park can be considered a primary topic, but its page should still mention New York in the title. We can simply have Central Park redirect to Central Park (New York), so that when the time for it to be disambiguated comes, we don't have another page to move besides Central Park (disambiguation). One can simply add the hatnote
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.