Talk:Parks and open spaces in the London Borough of Bexley

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Barking and Dagenham parks and open spaces which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merged list or separate articles

Hi User:Roger 8 Roger, I was planning on expanding this article; as it says there are over 100 parks and open spaces and presumably not all are notable enough or have enough material to warrant their own article, I am imagining a nice article here with less or more of a summary of each. This could involve merging some very short stubs here.. Obviously some, such as Danson Park, do have their own articles. What do you think? Jdcooper (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have created, or added to, an article on Shoulder of Mutton Green, which I think has enough notability to warrant an article of its own, due mainly to its history. I agree that most other open spaces will not be notable enough. There seems to be some untangling needed due to some cross editing around the redirecting. If you can see what has happened please feel free to untangle it. Thanks. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what untangling you are referring to! But I'm going to expand it a lot more now so hopefully it will all be rectified. I wonder if I could get your input: I'm intending to import the info from here: [1] Some extra information is available about some of the parks (history, use etc.) and some no. How do you think it would be most sensible to present the information? Options are:

Normal alphabetical order - this could be a bit dense/dull?
Grouped by type (Open space, meadow, woods, recreational area) - problem is that name does not always strictly reflect type of park, and splitting them like this seems a bit original researchy.
Grouped by area (North of the borough, east, etc.)
Some kind of hybrid - biggest parks described separately as now, then the rest in a unified list. But how to separate them?

I will start working on the basis of option 1, but I would appreciate if you have any thoughts! Jdcooper (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My first choice would be option 1. It is simple and simple is usually best. I can see it is deveoping well using option 1, so unless any problems with it later arrive I would think that option will stay. I will comment if I change my mind later. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having started adding the information, I now think it makes sense to separate the larger areas of woodland/scrubland, and the larger parks, into separate sections. (Basically how it is now on the article). Maybe marshlands into a separate section too. It's usually pretty clear which are which. Jdcooper (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]