Talk:Phoenix Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ireland (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Motorsport (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


This page contains a chapter written on Phoenix park which was written in 1907

Can some of the article be paraphrased into wikipedia? Has the copyright expired?

Sutton Park mention[edit]

Regarding Sutton Park: What has this got to do with the Phoenix Park? Absolutely nothing! Please leave it out. There is no mention in the article of the Phoenix Park claiming to be the largest city park in Europe or the World, frankly, who cares? The article is about the Phoenix Park, stick to the topic.

Phoenix Park is often popularly claimed to be the largest city park in Europe/the world (I've heard this "fact" multiple times in school), therefore a mention of why this is incorrect is very relevant to the article. Demiurge 16:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sutton Park is a suburban park, and may well be larger than the Phoenix Park, but the Phoenix Park is a city park. It is about 200m from a main central mainline Railway Station, and 300m from the Guinness Brewery, and the gates just metres from the city's River Liffey. Sutton Park is 10km north of Birmingham, more of a semi-rural suburban nature reserve. Not comparable at all to Phoenix Park. Phoenix Park can only be compared to the likes of Central Park in New York. Anyway, there is no mention of it being the largest park, so why mention some obscure park in some suburban English area? Completely irrelevant. Stick to the subject: Phoenix Park, Dublin, not a park in England, it's a truly bizarre mention for an encyclopedia.

The article should include all the relevant facts about Phoenix Park. One of those facts is that Phoenix Park is widely claimed ([1] [2] [3] [4]) to be the largest enclosed city park in Europe/the world, when in fact it isn't. Very simple, and not bizarre in the slightest. If you want to qualify this by pointing out that Sutton Park is further out from the city centre, go ahead. But please don't remove relevant information from the article. Demiurge 18:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel like this small bit of information should remain; however, maybe it would better fit in its own section if the article was expanded at a later time. I study here in Dublin and have heard this 'fact' several times, so if it is something people believe to be true, the correct fact should be stated here. Feel free to discuss. Toofishes 23:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


POTW has a long history of trying to force consensus upon others, as evidenced at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing. He had recently been trolling me again after a period of relative calm, so I decided to go see what he was up to and went with a "better safe than sorry" approach when I saw reverts by him. I've reverted to Demiurge's original edit, sorry for the inconvenience. karmafist 23:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The above is a lie and a personal attack, contrary to Wikipedia policy, and should be removed by a neutral third party, ASAP (please feel free to remove this at the same time). Andy Mabbett 15:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


Phoenix Park or The Phoenix Park Bogger 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The OPW runs the park and it is Phoenix Park - see here ww2censor 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
On that page the first line of the introduction: "A lively and entertaining exhibition on the history and the wildlife of the Phoenix Park" the same way the wiki article entitled Statue of liberty refers to "the Statue of Liberty"
as much proof as i need at this stageBogger (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Stephen's Green, Howth head, no def. art.
Phoenix pk, 40 foot, def. art.
I'm talking bout the name throughout the wiki article, not the name which sholud not have a determiner.Bogger 14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Again should the article refer to "the Phoenix Park" or "Phoenix Park"?? I believe it is "the Phoenix Park" (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. Do not assume that because a definte article is placed in front of the name at the beginning of a sentence means that is the name, that is correct grammatical use of the definite article. At the top of this page under "you are here" it shows the title Dublin > Phoenix Park. This page does not use a the anywhere and whenever you see it mentioned in the text of a sentence, the definite article is always lowercase, not uppercase, indicating grammatically that quite clearly the name is "Phoenix Park". Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Kanye West[edit]

He is not playing the big top concerts, he is playing at Live at the Marquee. Completely different concerts, completely different promoters e.g. Aiken Promotions and MCD promotions. Could somebody fix this please thank you. 23:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)E-to-the-izzo89.100.184.159 23:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Largest Park[edit]

Richmond Park is bigger in area than the Phoenix Park, 955 v. 712. Richmond Park may not be urban in the strict sense of the world but it is surrounded by London city, it maybe suburban technically. It is enclosed, it is surrounded by a wall, "The Park contains notable buildings, ten of which, plus the whole wall of the park, are listed buildings". This surely merits a reference. Snappy56 (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are correct upon reflection. My angle is that Phoenix Park is smaller than lots of things; Wicklow National Park for instance; the Bull Island etc - but I accept your point that Richmond is closer in the likely comparison a reader would have in mind. Sarah777 (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing. Also would the anon editor from NUI, Maynooth, please stop deleting this reference. Snappy56 (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You know one another?? How the heck do you know he/she/it is from NUI Maynooth?!! Sarah777 (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I know everything!! Well actually, I know by clicking here: [5]
Brilliant, Mr Holmes! Sarah777 (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fuck it all then: According to britannica, a reliable source, Phoenix park is the largest enclosed urban public park in europe. The fact that richmond park is bigger is irrelevant. It is not urban, it is suburban. It is not a public park, it is a royal park to which the public have access. As such, there is no reason to include that information on the page. Adding that reference would be akin to adding a reference to Elephant Seals to the Capybara page. The capybara article specifies that they are the largest living rodent. One could well add the addendum "but elephant seals are bigger", but that is completely and utterly irrelevant- As is the reference to richmond park. Furthermore, "Richmond Park in London, England is larger in area at 955 hectares (2,360 acres)." is not a reference, it is merely a statement made by the editor. (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not an invalid comparison, they are both large parks in cities, urban/suburban and royal/public is mere pedantry. It is also not original research, the figure is clearly stated on the Richmond Park website and so it is a published fact not OR. The main reason that this footnote (for that is what it is) is to stop new editors changing the opening sentence of this article, should they know that Richmond is bigger. The footnote is there to say that yes, Richmond Park is bigger so don't change the intro sentence which happened numerous times in the past. I have amended the footnote to state that Richmond is a royal suburban park. Anyway, it's not like either of these parks is the biggest in the world. Snappy56 (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix Park Racecourse[edit]

Does the old horse racing track have anything to do with the park? - Culnacréann-(talk) 21:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The race course was actually located outside the boundary of the park itself and is now a housing development. This map shows the relationship between the two locations. ww2censor (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Motor Racing[edit]

The motor racing is no longer an annual event in the park, should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some verifiable source that states the last year when motor racing took place? That is what should be added. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes i have this source if you would like more then i can get them. (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
That source does not state anywhere, that I can find anyway, that racing no longer is an annual event. The synthesis is that because there was an event in 2006 and 2007 and nothing listed in 2008 for this championship, that racing has ceased or become non-annual. You cannot use synthesis, it is not verifiable. Please provide a better source preferably a URL that actually supports your suggestion. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mystery plants: protected identities[edit]

"Among the 351 different plant species to be found in the Park there are three, which are rare and protected." The interest in this statement rests with the identification of the species.--Wetman (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Europe's largest enclosed urban park[edit]

Should or should the article not include the statement "phoenix park is Europe's largest enclosed urban park", a statement which is attributed to Encyclopædia Britannica, a Reliable Source (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's how Britannica describes phoenix park. WP:V states that articles should be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Which Britannica is. Why is there a problem with material referenced to a Britannica article? (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

But by using that source you are saying that the park itself is lying. Surely the OPW, an Irish government agency, knows the facts better than and outside source? BTW, when was the Britannica updated last? Perhaps you should also read this pdf, (1.1 Preamble). ww2censor (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying the OPW's lying. They just don't mention information that britannica does. The park's website doesn't say that phoenix park isn't the largest enclosed urban park in Europe- It just doesn't say that it is. And I don't see why information from a reliable third party source should be excluded. (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Both Sutton Park and Richmond Park are actually bigger. Snappy (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
But a third party, reliable source refers to phoenix park as the largest enclosed urban park in Europe. WP:V. (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Phoenix Park in Dublin is 707 ha, Richmond Park in London is 955 ha, and Sutton Park in Birmingham is 970 ha, so a source that describes Phoenix Park are the largest in Europe is clearly incorrect, and therefore unreliable. Snappy (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Britannica is widely recognised as reputable. Just because you don't personally think it is doesn't change the fact that it is a reliable source. Again, take the time to read WP:V46.7.72.30 (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
It's proven to be wrong, so stop adding it to the article. 3 editors have reverted your changes, so also there is no consensus for your changes. Snappy (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not proven to be wrong. You just say it's wrong. Which again, does not matter, it's verifiability that matters. (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Its demonstrably wrong. You can't cherry pick one source and elevate above the rest. The parks own website doesn't even make this claim. Also, there is no consensus among editors for adding this, so please stop doing so. Snappy (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, verifiability, not truth. It's not cherry picking. Articles should be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Which Britannica is. Why should it matter that the park's own website doesn't make that particular statement? (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you understand what consensus on wikipedia is? The Britannica reference is factually incorrect. Here are four more urban parks in Europe which are all bigger than Phoenix Park: Casa de Campo (1700 ha), Monsanto Forest Park (1000 ha), Bois de Vincennes (995 ha) and Bois de Boulogne (850 ha). So along with Richmond and Sutton, Phoenix Park is the 7th largest in Europe. This is not original research, its just counting. Snappy (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you understand what verifiability on wikipedia is? (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, I don't see anything about those parks being enclosed. (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Richmond Park is a walled park surrounded by London city, that's enclosed. Snappy (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
A reliable source states that phoenix park is the largest enclosed urban park in Europe. (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not reliable as its factually incorrect. Richmond Park is a enclosed urban city park in London and it is bigger than Phoenix Park. Also, there is no consensus for the changes you are proposing. Snappy (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
You don't seem to have read WP:V. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.". Whether you disagree with it or not is completely irrelevant. It's stated in a reliable source, and therefore should be included. (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
You don't seem to have read WP:Consensus. Again, there is no consensus among editors to support your position. Also, you're are falling into the trap of the Fallacy of defective induction, e.g. "Source A says that B is true. Source A is authoritative, therefore, B is true." Snappy (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not falling into any trap. I'm saying whether you think it's true or not is irrelevant, because "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
There is still no consensus for its addition. Snappy (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Besides which a generally reliable source that is proven to be inaccurate should not be forced into use as a reliable statement, so it is not a verifiable fact and therefore inappropriate and not reliable. Please stop trying to force this inaccuracy on the article. ww2censor (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, your opinion of whether or not it's true is irrelevant WP:V. Also, even if you don't believe it, the statement "according to Encyclopedia Britannica, phoenix park is the largest enclosed urban park in Europe" is obviously true, regardless of whether you believe "phoenix park is the largest enclosed urban park in Europe" to be true or not. (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, where is the consensus for the change you are seeking? Snappy (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, why are you opposed to adding properly cited material to the article? (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Properly cited is irrelvant, it's not accurate. Please read Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia. Also, a Nature study in 2005 found that there were 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia. Britannica had the length of the River Rhine incorrect for years, until it was pointed out to them. I intend to contact EB and point out their error on the Phoenix Park and see what they say. Snappy (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Citing isn't irrelevant. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." WP:V (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
You can keep quoting WP:V as often as you like but there is still no consensus for its addition. Snappy (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
You can keep quoting WP:CON as often as you like but there is still no change to the fact that it's verifiability, not truth, that matters. (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Please stop adding verifiably inaccurate information. ww2censor (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Snappy (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The statement "according to Encyclopedia Britannica is the largest in Europe" is not inaccurate. (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It is proven to be inaccurate. You consistent readding of this inaccurate material is now just vandalism and contrary to consensus. Please stop. ww2censor (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not. Please see WP:NOTVAND. (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry but I regard the fact that you constantly ignore consensus and repeatedly adding blatantly inaccurate information as so highly disruptive and therefore tantamount to vandalism because your edits: change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. ww2censor (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Then you obviously haven't read WP:NOTVAND. (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)]
I mwould sugest adding the information, but as "according to the Encylopeida Britianinca it is the largest enclised park in europe", then adding the other conflicting info. Its clear reliabley sourced just wrong, so we reflcet that.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Reliable sources make mistakes, be they encyclopedias or prestigious newspapers, etc. Why would we add information that we know is wrong? It isn't necessary to add it, and it's wrong, common sense says don't put it in. It just makes us look silly and is a mistaken view of WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that this article should state that the EB says that this is the largest enclosed urban park in Europe based on the information provided, if there are apparently at least six other parks which may be larger. There are several possible reasons I can think of for the discrepancies -- varying definitions of what counts as "enclosed", varying definitions of what counts as "urban", varying measurements of what should be included in the parks' area, and/or recent land acquisitions by the parks. Until EB prints an explanation for its reasoning, we won't know why they counted Phoenix Park as the largest. It may well be true that the EB says that Phoenix Park is the largest enclosed urban park in Europe, but there is no reason for us to include that statement in this Wikipedia article if we don't believe that the underlying claim is true. Wikipedia is better off not saying anything about which park is the largest than repeating apparently inaccurate information, even if sourced to a usually reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad that other editors agree with me and Ww2censor. Hopefully the disruptive IP editor (same one with 3 different IPs) will get the message, and leave this article alone. Snappy (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Just because other editors agree with you over one point of the article doesn't mean I'm going to "leave this article alone". The article is WP:NOTYOURS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a threat to continue your disruptive editing. Of course I don't own it and neither do you. Btw, the fact that other editors agree with me and ww2censor, is that "consensus" thingy that I may have mentioned before. Since you seem to like bluelinks, here's another one for you: WP:IAR. Snappy (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
It does not sound like a "threat", and you know it doesn't. It's exactly what it looks like i.e. my letting you know that I won't abandon editing an article because editors are weighing behind you on one sentence in the article. IAR you say? So you want me to ignore consensus? (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
"So you want me to ignore consensus?" You are already doing that! I want you to respect it. If other editors are weighing in behind me and ww2censor then thats the consensus and you are obliged by Wikipedia guidelines to respect it. If you can't do that then you know where the door is. Snappy (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I have not reverted since other editors started weighing in, and you know I have not. I think I'll stick around for the long haul. (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Back to topic?[edit]

One point, Britannica is a tertiary source appropriate for broad overview, and we're supposed to used 2ndary sources for more specific facts. I read through most of the above, but there seem to be few sources cited. What are the sources for the assertions of other parks that are said to be larger than Phoenix Park? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct -- any reliable secondary source would trump the tertiary source. The EB, amazingly enugh, has been shown fallible. Collect (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Source for Richmond parks size [[6]] source for the size of Sutton park [[7]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You may simply want to say "sources vary on X, with A saying 1, and B saying 2." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be like saying: "According to a source we know to be incorrect, A is...". As has been pointed out, EB is a tertiary source, what we need are reliable secondary sources. Per WP:RS - "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." This effectively rules out EB in this discussion. Snappy (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is an 1868 gazetteer giving the area as 1753 acres = 709 hectars. ww2censor (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Snappy, not really, we do not have to approach it that way. Clearly, Phoenix park has indeed been characterized as the largest park in Europe, not just the largest urban one, see [8], [9], [10], and [11]. There's also an Irish Times article claiming this, it seems that it's an old claim, and probably just the normal aggrandizement we are all prone to when speaking of thing we admire or cherish. So we could something to the effect that it has been characterized variously as the largest park in europe, largest urban park, largest enclosed urban park. Then we go casting about for additional sources that go into greater depth, such as:
The Irish Times, March 20, 2010 Saturday: "On Phoenix Park" by FIONA McCANN, SECTION: MAGAZINE; Column; Pg. 3
"IT S THE LARGEST park in Europe! I exclaimed with some pride as I ushered the husband through the gates of Phoenix Park for the first time, indicating with a sweep of my arm the unparalleled vastness of the greenery that stretched before us. He may have been momentarily impressed he being from a land of superlatives himself but a little research prompted a string of corrections to my expansive statement.
"Actually, it s the largest enclosed park in a European capital city, quoth he, finger on the text, eyebrows raised in a fancy that affectation known as smugness. True, those modifiers deflated my claims a little, but I would not be outdone. Fine. But it s the best thing about living in Stoneybatter.
This trumps the EB article, and is arguably a better source since it is more specificity, and not in conflict (as far as I know) with the primary sources folks have brought to the table. We can use primary sources, we just have to avoid OR. And if folks really want to clarify the issue, I would suggest starting a new "List of Parks in Europe" to link to, and include some of the parks discussed here with the refs provided. I don't think that violates any policies and it gets the reader to the data. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
All those sources just repeat an old inaccurate claim, just because they say it is true does not make it true. The Daily Star says Phoenix Park is Europe's largest enclosed space. Well, Richmond Park is bigger in size and is also enclosed, so much for that source then. There is already at list of Urban parks by size at Urban park#Urban Parks by Size. Snappy (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
On the latter point, great, we can point to that. On the prior point, perhaps I'm not being clear--it is the case that in the media the park has been represented in an inaccurate way, and the sources conflict. We cannot cherry pick the source we believe is correct, as that is OR. What we can do is document that the park has been characterized in a variety of manners and point the reader to all of the sources we have at hand, including the list of urban parks by size, and allow them to draw their own conclusions. It is interesting that the park has had these various characterizations, and documenting that is in and of itself valuable. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. It can be verified that a number of sources say this is the largest...ect. The article should reflect this by saying that it has been called the largest park in Europe.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Technically Richmond Park is not a public park, it is the Queens private lands that she allows people to use. However I do not think that sort of hair splitting should allow something that is manifestly not true in the ordinary meaning of the reading to be put in. Dmcq (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this may need an RFC, its clear this can be verified and truth is not a criteria for exclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Truth is most certainly a reason for exclusion as per WP:COMMONSENSE which is part of what that major policy WP:IAR is all about. I think it might be okay to say some sources have said Phoenix Park is the largest then say however and list a couple that are larger with citations. Dmcq (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I have susgestyed just that, and truth is being used to block it. But withoout knowing the criteria for size determination we cannot say if they are wrong, just that by one set of criteria they are wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hola. The Instituto Geográfico Nacional de España (IGNE), or National Geographic Institute is a Spanish government agency, the national mapping agency for Spain, together with the Centro Nacional de Información Geográfica (CNIG). It is a Reliable Source. IGN runs Iberpix, a complete and useful free access resource to a broad range of geospatial data (DEMs, satellite imagery, aerial photographs, ground use data...) made public via web GIS applications. Here. Also, it is an accurate tool to measure areas.

  • According to Iberpix, Casa de Campo in Madrid has 1750 hectares (2,5 times Phoenix].
  • Casa de Campo is a urban park (only 2200 m away from Puerta del Sol, the city Council.
  • Casa de Campo is an enclosed urban park. Its walls are more than 400 years old.

So, BE statement its simply wrong and unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus process[edit]

Reaching out with an RfC was a good idea, but pending involvement of more contributors who may change consensus, there is currently no support for adding the information. While WP:V does apply, it does not follow that Wikipedia is required to put into every article everything that has ever been published about a source. Interested contributors are free to evaluate published information and determine whether or not it should be included. While not vandalism per se, editing against consensus is disruptive; specifically, continuing to edit an article in pursuit of a certain point when other editors are opposed is tendentious. Please abide by the consensus model. Ordinarily, contributors who do not are blocked; if necessary, the page will be protected or even semi-protected to prevent ongoing disruption, if disruption is unilateral. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)