Talk:Hampstead Heath
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. | |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Hampstead Heath is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs. |
[edit] 30 St Mary Axe? Not on my gherkin!
Why do people insist on calling it 30 St. Mary Axe here? Is it because "The Gerkhin", the name by which it is known universally to Londoners, isn't thought suitable to an encyclopedia? Even the owners of the place have started to refer to it by its common name, The Gherkin, on their website. 30 St. Mary Axe is just an address, like 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- er the website at www.30stmaryaxe.com in the FAQ says thats the official name. Boring it may be. Personally I am disappointed that people just call it the gherkin not the original "erotic gherkin". Justinc 22:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestions copied from main page, where they must have been misplaced.
Hampstead Heath is NOT owned by the Corporation of London. It is owned by the Sovereign as part of the Royal Parks asset portfolio but is managed by the Corporation of London under an agreement ratified by Parliament to provide unlimited enjoyment of its acres to the public.
Its category as a World Heritage Site is the result of intense lobbying by the Sovereign who went to considerale litigation lengths to block housing development on it during the 1970s and 1980s when it was under threat by local planning authority submissions.
In 1992 the Crown Solicitors published a number of legal documents relating to the Sovereign's ownership of the Heath and the management arrangements held by the Corporation of London. Access to these under the Freedom of Information Act is sparse at present. (68.198.181.134 04:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Merge Parliament Hill
Parliament Hill, London is proposed for merging into the Parliament Hill section on the Hampstead Heath article as Parliament Hill is a part of the Heath - there is no differentiation between the two other than a metalled footpath. Both articles are small, and the intention is to build the one. The Parliament Hill article is a stub, and it is unlikely it will ever grow much beyond what it is at the moment - and if it does, that would be the time to break it out in Summary style as per Wiki guidelines. This link (which can be found as a source on the Parliament Hill stub) is a map of Hampstead Heath showing how Parliament Hill is part of the south side with no physical or visual differentiation. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Entirely disagree, on three points. Firstly, that Parliament Hill and Hampstead Heath are, legally, two separate entities; one is not 'a part of the other' although the City of London presently manage them both (they didn't in the past). You might as well say that every road in the country should have the same name because they are all contiguous! Secondly, their history is separate as regards how they came to be private then public spaces and, whilst they may be adjacent, to link them together intimately in a single article would be a disservice. Thirdly as there are other 'Parliament Hill's. That you believe both these articles to be stubs is not a reason to merge with loss of information (as you did) but a better reason to expand both articles. --AlisonW (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
