Jump to content

Talk:Royal National Park

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The section under naturism is rubbish, only Werrong is official, the others are not listed anywhere and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.178.129 (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • i've delineated between legal and informal nude bathing beaches, & added fact template/"citation needed" for Marley & Curracurrang, since the only ref i could find online (gangart - Freebeach) does list Little Jibbon Beach, Jibbon Beach & Ocean Beach as "Traditional free" beaches but only says "There are several other beaches in the Royal National Park that are suitable for nude bathing, such as Marley Beach and Curracurrang." David Woodward 04:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marley beach according to maps and books is unsuitable for any sort of swimming! In fact there are warning signs at the beach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.209.109 (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article had no references at all when i found it, i have added a ref section and a few refs, but it really does need a lot of work. i would like see with a rating on the WikiProject Australia importance scale, but currently this would be hard to justify. For instance, Robertson was not Premier in 1879, i've tried to research this but found few details from Henry_Parkes#Third_premiership:

Robertson tried to form a government but failed, and tired of the unsatisfactory position resigned his seat in the assembly. He was then approached by Parkes, and a government was formed with Robertson as vice-president of the executive council and representative of the government in the upper house. ... everyone was glad to escape from the confusion of the preceding years, and the ministry did good work in its four years of office.

All i can assume is that he declared it while he was still Premier, and it was not proclaimed until later, this may be a simple fact, and difficult to explain clearly, never-the-less it is an example of something that detracts from the article as a whole. So help is desired from any Australian/NSW history buffs to clarify this point.David Woodward 04:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, re Robertson, from the National Heritage database i got "Acting Premier", so i guess that clears that up. However, this article still needs extensive wikifying. I am inclined to mark the whole thing as "Unreferenced", so if anybody wants to get stuck in, please do. David Woodward 06:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

improvements

[edit]

How about a map of the park. And are there any threats to it eg pollution, weeds, urban encroachment? Graeme Bartlett 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No mention of the heritage listed cabin community that is featured in the pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.14.29 (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for "world's second national park"

[edit]

The Australian Heritage database lists this as a citation for the above claim:

  • Goldstein, W. (Ed) 1979. Australia's 100 years of national parks. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney

and I assume that this may have something similar:

  • Goldstein, W. 1976. Royal National Park. National Parks and Wildlife Service publication. Government Printers. Sydney.

The claim is also queried at Wilderness and could do with a good cite. Bleakcomb (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is widely claimed - but wrong. Mackinac National Park, founded in 1875, was the second. Rmhermen (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's nice, but evidence rather than assertion is required before making edits that conflict with references. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, not just a US one. Mackinac is sometimes claimed to be the second oldest national park in the US, although that claim depends on some fairly specific finagling about terms, including ignoring the fact that is isn't a national park at all and hasn't been for 150 years. However i can find no reliable sources whatsoever that contend that Mackinac is the world's second oldest national park. That would be hard sell considering that the area isn't a national park. Anyway, the statement in this article is well referenced, so please don't delete it again. Mark Marathon (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that Australia's claim requires careful finagling of the dates and terms but there is no doubt that Mackinac National Park was founded in 1875 which is before 1879. Royal National Park may claim to be the second oldest surviving national park which is what the references given here seem to claim. Rmhermen (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it part of Sydney?

[edit]

I know when it says 29km from Sydney it means the city of Sydney (or cbd), but the way this article is worded makes it sound as if the park is separate from Sydney as a whole, despite the fact that it's in the Sutherland shire. I think it needs a rewording. Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Royal National Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Royal National Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_National_Park&oldid=1237486269"