Talk:South Downs National Park

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sussex High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hampshire Low‑importance

	Hampshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire 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.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge proposal

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The south downs are now officially a national park, this article now needs revising.

02:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Cryotronic

The park has been approved but is not yet in place, or likely to be before 2011. Even the boundaries are not yet decided in certain areas. A park authority has to be appointed and to decide how planning powers are exercised.--Charles (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March-April 2010

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)[reply]

Designated landscapes covering areas beyond their named location

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)[reply]

Location map

I've uploaded a location map of the South Downs to Commons (shown to right). I have not created an associated {{location map}} 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.--Nilf anion (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Thanks for that.--Charles (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate overflow in infobox

Does anyone know how to fix that error? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiston House as a "See also"

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)[reply]

Arundel

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)[reply]