Talk:Hyde Park, London

Rotten Row

This article indicates that the name "Rotten Row" is a corruption of "Route du Roi." However, the article on Rotten Row claims there is no evidence as to this postulation. I'm not going to remove it, but anyone's input on that claim would be useful. mcclth (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've rewritten the para to make it clear that there is a variety of possible antecedants, with references over 100 years old. - Pointillist (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Origin of name

Someone on WP:RDH asked what the origin of the park's name is, and the article doesn't say. I did some research, and propose to add the following:

A small manor named Hyde is mentioned in the Domesday Book, part of the larger manor of Eia(ref1); the name Hyde probably derives from the Anglo Saxon unit of land taxation, the hyde.(ref2)

where ref1= Old and New London: Volume 4 by Edward Walford, says of the area "About the time of Domesday Book, the manor of Eia was divided into three smaller manors, called, respectively, Neyte, Eabury, and Hyde. The latter still lives and flourishes as a royal park, under its ancient name, no doubt of Saxon origin".

and ref2= "Hyde", Oxford Book of British Place Names, ed A.D.Mills, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-852758-9

I appreciate that ancient names can have different, equally likely and well-sourced, explanations, so I thought I'd run this past y'all before adding it. 87.113.26.43 (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Search for "squirrel" yields 0 results!

Doesn't make sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.85.30 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2015

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: no consensus as will inevitably happen when the two primary topic criteria are in conflict with each other and the votes in the RM are roughly split down the middle. Jenks24 (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

---

• Hyde Park, London → Hyde Park
• Hyde Park → Hyde Park (disambiguation)

– Global primary usage. Outside of the United States there doesn't seem to be any argument that the historic park in London is by far the most well-known and most-searched of all of the places currently named Hyde Park (or named for the Hyde Park in London). This was previously proposed in a discussion above which I think contains a flawed argument that New Hyde Park, New York is of greater prominence. First of all, that is naturally disambiguated already; also that is quite clearly a U.S.-centric view. Second, Kbthompson's count of incoming links is compelling. As it stands now:

• Hyde Park, London - 1,639 (was ~450)
• Hyde Park, Chicago - 478 (was ~270)
• Hyde Park, New York - 402 (was ~140)
• New Hyde Park, New York - 131 (was ~150)

And in wiki-hits (last 60 days):

• Hyde Park, London - 26,387
• Hyde Park, Chicago - 11,393
• Hyde Park, New York - 8,891
• New Hyde Park, New York - 5,215
• Hyde Park (this page) - 5,030

Clearly there are more pages linking to Hyde Park, London, and more visitors accessing that article, than the other three apparent top contenders combined. This shouldn't even be controversial. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Outside the United Kingdom there is no primary topic. To suggest otherwise is clearly a UK-centric view. The page view stats provided by the nominator show the London park fails to pass the criteria laid out at WP:PTOPIC, which says a topic must be sought more than all others combined. If you include view counts for the dozen or so other entries the nominator didn't bother mentioning, the London park would lose badly. Calidum 17:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:TITLECHANGES ("If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed"). There's no real primary topic and the current setup makes it much easier to spot incorrect incoming links. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Calidum ; we should remove all US and UK bias and ignore primarity in those countries, if we want to look outside . The US and the UK do not comprise the entire world. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Solid logic. Calidum's description of PTOPIC is inaccurate, and I'll assume good faith that it stems merely from having misread it. Likewise, "outside the United Kingdom there is no primary topic" - Google hits for "Hyde Park New York": 28.7 million; "Hyde Park Chicago": 18.1 million. That's 46.8 million between them. "Hyde Park London" gets 43.7 million, which is very nearly as many as both of the former together. The discussion topic - not absolute rule - of PTOPIC that Calidum neglected to mention is that [a] topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. On this front: the New York article is a small town dating from about 1742. Its most notable historic point is that it was the home town of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Chicago article is a 300 acre city district dating from 1853. The topic of this article is one of the most famous landmarks of one of the largest historic cities in the world, created in 1536 by King Henry VIII from an estate that had been in existence since before the Norman Conquest, a home of the Royal Family since 1689 and a huge part of the social and political life of the city over the last two centuries. (Yes, the Chicago one had the World's Columbian Exhibition in 1893; but in addition to all the preceding, Hyde Park had the Great Exhibition of 1851.) There is simply no competition on this criterion.  — Scott • talk 18:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Hyde Park in London is by far the most known and by far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 21:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per the nominator's own page view statistics, the London Hyde Park is not more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term, one of the criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC There are way too many Hyde Parks for this to claim primary topic. kennethaw88 • talk 03:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hyde Park, London/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 12:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this on the weekend, I didn't realize it had been in the queue this long!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Apologies for the delay, reading now :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Lede

"It opened to the public in the early 17th century" -can we be more precise?

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

History

• "Military executions were common in Hyde Park at this time; John Rocque's Map of London, 1746 marks a point inside the park as "the stone where soldiers are shot."[19]" -is there anything else worth mentioning? A footnote with some details might be good here.

I've dropped something in a footnote. As the map is obviously PD, it's online, and you can see for yourself the spot that is proudly marked "where soldiers are shot"! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• "The first coherent landscaping in Hyde Park was undertaken by Charles Bridgeman for Queen Caroline (wife of King George II),[16] under the supervision of Charles Withers, the Surveyor-General of Woods and Forests." -when?

1726. I've expanded this a bit Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• "The Hyde Park Lido first opened in 1930. It was designed by the Commissioner of Works, George Lansbury, and still sees regular use in the summer.[24]" -a bit "notey", is there a way to elaborate or flesh out the parts on 20th century history a bit so it flows better?

Take another look :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Features

• "During the late 20th century, over 9,000 elm trees in Hyde Park were killed by Dutch elm disease." -can you elaborate, seems quite notable to me.

I've added a bit more, but the sources I have just say pretty much what's in the article now and leave it at that :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• " 7-tonne" worth converting?

I don't see why not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Concerts

• "while John Peel later said it was "the nicest concert I’ve ever been to"." -seem a little out of place here

Well John Peel is known for have attended quite a few gigs, so to pick one out like that is a kind of significant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Overall seem to cover what is required for GA level but in places it does still seem a bit "notey" and could do with some polishing still.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Okay, I've beefed up the article so it's got another 2K of prose, mostly in the 20th - 21st century area as requested. Any other comments? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good Ritchie for GA, thankyou for being one of the few people to bother with core articles like this and the pier.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 22 September 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move at this time, after extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 03:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hyde Park, London → Hyde Park
• Hyde Park → Hyde Park (disambiguation)

– I think that the original Royal Park (of which the others are at the base name) is primary in this case, given that as pointed out the US places always include the state per WP:USPLACE. If we want to look outside then I'd point out that the park is primary on most other major WPs such as De, Fr, It, Pl, Pt and Sv. Central Park goes to the park in New York, despite "Central Park" obviously being generic and I'd say that Hyde Park is comparable to Central Park. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support Easily the most documented "Hyde Park" in the world in sources, and the most widely-read article with this name. However, given the previous move request in 2015, I don't fancy its chances of succeeding. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom, per Central Park, and per its centuries old notable history. This is the location of the common name for the term aside from the New York town which is primarily notable not for its name or independent historical importance but as the location of the homes of the Roosevelt family and the FDR Presidential Library. The prominent Roosevelt home there is named Springwood, not Hyde Park. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose No! There are HUNDREDS of Hyde Parks (in the United States) and we have THREE HYDE PARKS just in Chicago![1] You MUST be SPECIFIC, and the "Hyde Park, London" that you are referring to is the Hyde Park, London! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4B80:2FEE:5DF7:5988:B2FB:BA6F (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Should we be specific and rename Central Park and put Central Park (disambiguation) there, since there are many of them and "Central Park" could refer to a park in the centre of anywhere. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support as per above as well as per my comment 2 years ago which stated "Hyde Park in London is by far the most known and by far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, Easy support. " - Nothing's changed in my eyes. –Davey2010^Talk 18:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - no sources or support have appeared to back the claim to primary topic. Please at least try to give some sort of grounding. There are a lot of Hyde Parks. Red Slash 01:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Red Slash: a great deal of sources now exist below. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no evidence to support the claim this Hyde Park is the primary topic for the term Hyde Park. Wishing that is the case doesn’t make it so. Calidum 20:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Calidum: This park is probably the most famous park, globally in probably the most famous city in the world. Famous for its Speakers' Corner. I didn't repeat many of the arguments in the 2015 debate as they were still above, I did however reply to the point about looking outside of the US and UK. Per WP:PTOPIC "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". Its also been shown that this one gets lots of views. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Given the abundance of Hyde Parks, it seems like the clarifier is valuable for our readers, so I don't see that this would be beneficial. As WP:TITLECHANGES notes, "if an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed". ╠╣uw [talk] 14:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Great City Parks discusses only Hyde Park in London, and Hyde Park: The People's Park describes it as "perhaps the most famous park in the world today". Websites include only Hyde Park in London in descriptions of the "World’s Best/Most Famous City Parks". No other Hyde Park is described this way in sources. Whizz40 (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Google Ngrams [2], [3] show "London's Hyde Park" or "Hyde Park in London" has been the primary topic in books for decades. Whizz40 (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

For context, Ngram showing the topic of Hyde Park is as notable as that of Central Park.[4]. Whizz40 (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Hyde Park, London only gets three times as many views as Hyde Park, New York – evidence. By the time all the other places have been factored in, I expect that the proportion of views for the London page will be nearer 70% than 75%. That is nowhere near enough to define a WP:PTOPIC. "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."

See also WP:TITLECHANGES – "" If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Narky Blert (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Narky Blert. Your page view statistics, and your estimation, say at least 70% of readers searching for 'Hyde Park' want this page. Seems to give it primary, as 70% is far over the 50% of "all other topics combined". If those figures are near correct, wouldn't it make more sense to primary this page and hatnote the disamb. page? Randy Kryn (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn:. Only if you're prepared to annoy 25-30% of readers, who are going to need two clicks to get to where they want instead of one. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• And I think we've established that it easily meets Pt#2. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Tests 1 and 2 are cumulative not alternative. Narky Blert (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, it clearly fails the first prong of PT, barely getting more than 50% of views compared to what are likely among the nine most-viewed other Hyde Park pages. [5] Also, while it's the best placed to do so, the London Park does not clearly pass the second prong, since the New York and the Chicago Hyde Parks are both very prominent parks in their own right with many landmarks that are of historic and encyclopedic significance. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page view statistics show the article Hyde Park, London is the primary topic on Wikipedia. This is evidenced in the WP:RS cited above. The case for moving this article, even though it has been stable for a long time, is that secondary sources (the Google Ngrams of a corpus of many English-language books) show it has been the primary topic the *whole time*. References to London's Hyde Park or Hyde Park in London occur in published books many times more frequently than references to all the other Hyde Parks put together. Individual editors' opinions should not hold sway over the contents of published books. WP:Consensus#In talk pages says the consensus should be based on the quality of the supporting evidence provided - page views, secondary sources, Ngrams - WP:not counting heads. The 'oppose' arguments here are variants of "I just don't like it" without evidence to support their case. Whizz40 (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia pageview statistics actually show that the London Hyde Park has a tenous claim to be the primary topic, since its share of the pageviews is barely over 50%, which is insufficient per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which says: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." [emphasis added]

The cited sources are irrelevant since they're about parks and the New York and Chicago "Hyde Parks", and most of the articles at the DAB are neighbourhoods. Longstanding stability further militates against a page move. If we're going to go by RS instead, it's pretty easy to find other metrics that would cast doubt on there being a clear primary topic. A Google News search for "Hyde Park" and London/"New York"/Chicago gives me 172k / 247k / 131k; Google Books gives me 2.1 mil /1.78 mil /1.29 mil; Google Scholar gives me 52.2k / 65.6k / 34.4 k; Google News Archive gives me 263 / 179 / 87. While by no means perfect, it does roughly show that in many categories of RS, the London Hyde Park's claim to be a primary topic is tenuous at best.

Lastly, WP:Consensus#In talk pages does not explicitly say what you're claiming it says, but places great emphasis on argument quality and the relevant policies and guidelines. To varying degrees, all the oppose !voters have touched on the factors relevant to determining a primary topic and naming an article, often specifically citing the relevant guidelines/policies or providing pageview stats. To smear us all as part of a bizarre anti-London Hyde Park hate group that doesn't understand how consensus works on Wikipedia and which hasn't provided any evidence or policy/guidelines based arguments is blatantly incorrect. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, wasn't meant as a smear, only to point out the lack of evidence - thank you for the stats. As you point out, the topic of article can claim to be the primary source based on several dimensions, although not all. Hyde Park is visited by 12.8 million people each year, 37% of which are from outside the UK, compared with 2k to 100k people living in each of the neighbourhoods named after it. Whizz40 (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Ritchie333. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – does not clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also, the nomination seems to be based on OTHERSTUFF rather than proposing that the current article title violates policy or causes confusion for viewers. Bradv 04:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

References

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pink floyd live 8 london.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Buildings

Hi, everyone.

I propose that this article include a list of all the important buildings in the park. Satellite photos show many, yet apparently most of these are not mentioned in this article.

Incidentally: In late May of 1997, I took several photos in Hyde Park. My contemporaneous notes describe the location as "near to the building w/ the big log bench in Hyde Park, London". I vaguely recall that bench, but have not found anything about it online and don't know what building it was near. Can anyone here shed any light on this mystery?

Are there also certain benches in the park that are worth mentioning at Wikipedia?

President Lethe (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Not the largest

The article includes the statement Hyde Park is the largest Royal Park in central London.... However, the list at Royal Parks of London shows that Regent's Park, also in central London, is larger. I don't have full access to source cited in the following sentence, but can see through previews that it describes Hyde Park as the "largest of the Royal Parks". It doesn't qualify that statement with "in central London" the way the article does. Since Bushy Park and Richmond Park are much larger, the source may be using a different definition of "Royal Parks" that excludes Regent's Park, Bushy Park, and Richmond Park. This should be clarified in the article.--Trystan (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I suspect the comment of Hyde Park being the largest is because it and Kensington Gardens are often regarded as a single space, being adjacent. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

That could be, though I am not sure how it would be worded in the article to clarify that it is not just Hyde Park being considered. It still wouldn't explain the unqualified "largest of the Royal Parks" statement in the source, though, since Bushy and Richmond are far larger than the combined Hyde-Kensington area.--Trystan (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Bushy and Richmond are not in central London, which is the claim. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The source doesn't say "in central London"; it just says Hyde Park is the largest of the Royal Parks. The "in central London" qualifier was added a few years ago when someone pointed out Richmond is larger. However, that adjustment doesn't address that Regent's is also larger than Hyde.--Trystan (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The source given is The London Encyclopedia edited by Ben Weinreb and Christopher Hibbert which states on page 423 "Hyde Park W1, W2, SW7. The largest of the Royal parks, covers 340 acres between Bayswater Road in the north and Knightsbridge in the South". Wikipedia is based off information given in reliable sources per the verifiability policy - Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Other sources disagree, which is the problem. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Where and what are these sources? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Bushy Park, 445 hectares (1,100 acres)
• Green Park, 19 hectares (47 acres)
• Greenwich Park, 74 hectares (180 acres)
• Hyde Park, 142 hectares (350 acres)
• Kensington Gardens, 111 hectares (270 acres)
• Regent's Park, 166 hectares (410 acres)
• Richmond Park, 955 hectares (2,360 acres (9.6 km²))
• St. James's Park, 23 hectares (57 acres)

References

Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't see anything in those sources that contradicts the London Encyclopedia, which I consider a definitive source for London streets and architecture. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Then try New Royal Parks site Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That just says that Bushy Park is the second largest. Nothing about Hyde Park. A source that starts "Get active with a gentle stroll, outdoor swim or bike ride. Connect with nature in some of the capital’s largest open spaces and most valuable habitats for wildlife. Enjoy world-class concerts, year-round events and community projects." doesn't sound as good as an established and notable encyclopaedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the individual pages it gives the size of each, from which it is easy to see that Hyde Park is not the largest Royal Park. For whatever reason, the London Encyclopaedia is wrong, possibly because it relied on out of date information or was just sloppily worded, possibly both. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't see anything in those sources that contradicts the London Encyclopedia... I think we can take the official website for the Royal Parks to be a highly reliable source for their size, and I wouldn't exactly consider it original research to observe the Hyde Park's size is smaller than Richmond Park, Bushy Park, and Regent's Park. Where sources conflict, we can highlight that in the article, or leave it out entirely. It would be ridiculous to say, "According to the London Encyclopedia, Hyde Park is the largest of the Royal Parks, though the official Royal Parks website lists its size as fourth largest." We should just change the sentence to something like, "Hyde Park is a large Royal Park in central London."--Trystan (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd go for the more neutral "Hyde Park is a Royal Park in central London." Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That works for me.--Trystan (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I've made the appropriate changes Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I see that Alanscottwalker has changed it back again to "the largest" without discussing it here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I did not see this discussion, but I think the sentence I wrote, says it's the largest in the chain of parks from Kensington Palace Gardens to St James P. in Westminster. (at any rate, that's what my edit meant to say).Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC) I think I just further clarified it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks good; I think the clarified wording is helpful.--Trystan (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Photo

I propose that the top photo be changed as it really is a picture of Kensington Gardens with Hyde Park in the background, rather than the other way round (as per the description) 84.64.29.167 (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you find a better one? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

There are a bunch in commons:Category:Aerial photographs of Hyde Park, London, but I'm not sure any are as good a quality as this one.

• 
  File:Aerial view of Hyde Park.jpg
• 
  File:Hyde Park from the air.jpg
• 
  File:Hyde Park from air.jpg
• 
  File:London 02.jpg

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

That's the problem, I've tried tweaking a couple but the results are mediocre. They appear to be taken through the window of an aircraft, the latter not being the best optical device available. Really needs a good drone shot but that is a very difficult thing to accomplish in Central London, especially in the current situation. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

As a followup, I've checked the online drone map and Hyde Park is a prohibited area. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)