Talk:List of research parks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

[edit] Page Merger

Yes, I think they should be merged. They all seem to be the same thing with a few minor differences. We need someone who can explain the differences if there are any between research parks, technology parks, science parks, biomedical parks, etc. Is the term "research park" a category in which all the others fit? Do universities have authority or influence over some of these parks? How are these parks formed and is zoning involved? Who or what controls these parks? These are questions that should be answered in the article with any references that you can find. Also, the categories: Category:Technology parks and Category:Research parks should be intertwined or split depending on the results of the previous questions. I don't know that much about them, so I can't do much. --TinMan 22:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC).

The categories parks, technology parks, science parks, biomedical parks, business parks, etc, are technically speaking different. But as some of these entities have had funding problems, they have expanded their field of actions and a blurring of boundaires have occured. For instance, the 'Cabral Dahab Science Park Paradigm' has been used to evaluate all these categories, as well as incubators. The key issue for planners and managers is what "sell" better in their local setting. If they can attract more funding by calling it Science Park, they will do it. If it is biomedical park, they will do it. But the bluring of identity can create problems. A biomedical parks hould not have a software company that develop 3-d games in its premisses, for instance. In general terms, one expect a "research park" to have predominantly research units of companies or research firms. A science park, a technology park etc, may have this, but the key aim is product development. None of these parks should "technically speaking" have large production units. An industrial park is a place for this. Regis Cabral

  • I'm in favour of common terminology and against a merger. That's because the three existing articles seem to have three separate functions: science park is the main text; research park is a list; and technopolis needs to be disambiguation. At least one of the relevant international organisations, International Association of Science Parks [1], confirms the usage that Science Park/Technology Park/Research Park/Technopole are interchangeable. So I suggest we redirect the synonyms to the existing Science Park article. Similarly I'd suggest moving articles into the main Category:Science parks until it's clearer whether different categories for articles would be distinct enough to add value. --Mereda 15:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I just want all of them to fall under one word and if that word is "science park", then go ahead. All these places seem to be "industrial parks" specializing in Research, Science, and Development. --TinMan 19:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major problems with this page

  1. This article used to define and list research parks... now it has become an article about University research parks and some "association" that is only affiliated with some of them... using only one definition of a "research park".
  2. The title of the article is AURP-Association of University Research Parks, which is not formatted in accordance with Wikipedia article naming guidelines.
  3. What happened to the semi-merging of technopolis and science park and research park?
  4. There is a category of technopolises... does there need to be an incomplete list anymore?
  5. There are so many universities that have research parks, that it is almost senseless to list them. A catgory should suffice.