Talk:Piedmont Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Piedmont Park is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page. To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.) Date: 19:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Atlanta (Rated B-Class) Piedmont Park is within the scope of WikiProject Atlanta, dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Metro Atlanta. For more information see the project page. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) (Rated B-Class) Georgia (U.S. state) Portal This article is part of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Georgia (U.S. state) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. National Register of Historic Places WikiProject (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Merge from Friends of Piedmont Park

Please merge any relevant content from Friends of Piedmont Park per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of Piedmont Park. Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:41Z

[edit] Parking Deck Controversy

Just tried to edit out a good bit of info about the controversy. There were way too many non-notable details. Just the main points of the current situation need to be in the article itself. Also, please cite sources - the entire article needs them, but cite source that people can then go read if they want all the suit details. If you want to write in that level of detail, the perfect place is as a news article on Portal:Georgia (U.S. state) - it needs content. Please discuss here on the talk page rather than waging an edit war. Thanks. --Roswell native 04:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Added back in were just the details of the lawsuit, which is the current focus of the controversy. That lawsuit includes subjects of local, state-wide, and national interest, including open government, the proper boundaries of public-private partnerships, and the limits on using public resources for non-public purposes. Other information was not included, and the new article gives readers only the main information about the current situation. The new paragraph also includes the only website I know of that contains a copy of the lawsuit. Thanks for the suggestions and the article is now better as a result of your inputs. Atlanta resident. February 18, 2007.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.57.6 (talk • contribs) date.

Thanks for discussing here. The degree of detail in the text is really not of statewide of national interest (in fact, I'm local - I think my family membership to the Botanical Gardens is even stil valid - and I don't really care about the name of the judge or all the allegations of the suit). Basic summaries of the current events are all that should really be in an encyclopedic entry for Piedmeont Park - especially given that the rest of the article is so sparse. Not sure the suit details would stand alone as its own article either so that doesn't seem to be an option either. I still think writing a "news" article for Portal:Georgia (U.S. state) would be a more appropriate place for the blow-by-blow details of the actual lawsuit. I'd be interested in hearing others thoughts on this.

Also, the text itself also strikes me as being very POVish. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Anything added needs to fit into those Wikipedia policies. Speaking of which, I'll now get off my soapbox. Thank you again for discussing this on the talk page. --Roswell native 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The legal battle regarding the Park is over. Any continuing litigation is taking place between the FoPP and the ABG and thus does not belong in this article. The focus of this section should now move to the progress of the north woods expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.224.159 (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but the controversial actions of PPC are still relevant and a parking deck in the middle of a park will still be seen as incongruous and controversial. AUTiger » talk 21:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not so much an opinion as it is being pragmatic. At what milestone would you propose the parking deck controversy become "old news"?

[edit] Bias introduced by parking deck opponents

Please don't omit the "pedia" from this wikipedia article. As Roswell native commented above, this article is not a soapbox! Edits done by 207.144.135.26 have been very aggressive towards the Piedmont Park Conservancy. Those feelings may be warranted but this is not the place. When in doubt, leave it out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.154.55 (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)