Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

Talk:Sense of place

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:WikiProject iconGeography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconUrban studies and planning Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

[edit]

Seem a bit speculative and/or like original research. Anyone else get this sense? Bradybd 09:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me the main entry is not speculative as commented below 29 March 2007. Sense of place is complicated and contested and the original entry has tried to keep it simple but accurate. It could do with more references in the opening paragraph so I'll try to track some down. Today I added a new section on developing a sense of place including references.SocSci123 (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I have heard architects and city planners use this term on a regular basis. There has got to be a better place to present it. Kortoso (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

[edit]

With Spirit of place. Thoughts? Kortoso (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rampant original research

[edit]

While I just reverted some blanking, I have to agree that this is a bloody awful article. It's been tagged as such for eight years, too. Unless someone can come up with a rationale for salvaging some of this, I see no reason to keep it around for much longer. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There having been no counterarguments, it's time to clean house. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is just a somewhat incoherent essay, let's delete it.----Ehrenkater (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]