Talk:Multi-storey car park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Colloquialism

Whirley-gig??? Does anyone use this term? Jackal24 08:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.

[edit] Notable Parking Structures

Should there be a section added about Notable Parking Structures? For instance, listing the world's tallest or highest capacity parking structures? --Zegoma beach 12:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deepest Parking Garage

What parking garage has the most underground levels in the world and how many feet underground does it go? This would be worth adding to Wikipedia. --70.179.170.119 07:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Multi-storey car park → Parking garage — As it is stated in the article, the term "multi-storey car park" only applies to the United Kingdom and its former colonies. Parking garage is a much more universal term. Crashintome4196 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
  • Oppose - per WP:ENGVAR. Multi-storey car park was the first name of this article so British English gets the nod over American English.--Bobblehead 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I support the move only if the term "parking garage" is used in Commonwealth countries as well. --Shadowlink1014 23:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose --- ONLY in Britain and its former colonies?? As opposed to WHICH other English-speaking countries? Are there any? A number of times on Wikipedia I've seen it argued that "'A' is a better name for the article than 'B', since 'B' is used in the USA whereas 'A' is used in Commonwealth countries, so 'A' is a much more universal term." Michael Hardy 23:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Michael Hardy took the words out of my mouth. FlagSteward 20:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I suppose I should add to the above: One reason for NOT moving this is the great geographic variation in nomenclature in North America. In some parts of the USA the term "parking garage" refers ONLY to indoor parking facilities, whether single- or multi-level. And for outdoor multilevel parking facilities, the terminology varies a lot---there just isn't any term uniformly understood throughout North America.
Also, the term "multi-storey car park" is self-explanatory in a way the others are not. Michael Hardy 21:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
And mis describes the single story facilities that are covered. Vegaswikian 22:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. It was what the article was first title and we should leave it as it is. 205.157.110.11 02:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - parking garage means an inside facility whereas the existing wording is a facility open at the sides. TerriersFan 22:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • By that definition there are a lot of parking garages in the US that have the wrong name. Most parking garages I know of are open sided. Vegaswikian 21:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. To parking garage or a better term without the UK/US issue. If this was a US/UK issue, then it would be clear that the article should be left where it is. The problem is that it is inaccurate since not all facilities of this type are multi story or share this name. Maybe parking structure is the most generic name to use here. No US/UK bias that I am aware of and there is no requirement for multiple floors implied by the name. I believe that the guidelines suggests using a neutral name when there is a UK/US conflict if one is available. Another option would be to merge it with parking lot. Or rename this article to multi story parking lot since the primary article is parking lot. Why have the US/UK difference on these two closely related topics? Vegaswikian 22:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That "parking garage" ALWAYS means an INDOOR parking facility is also the standard that I grew up with. "Parking structure", like "parking ramp", "parking deck", "parkade", etc., is a regionalism. Michael Hardy 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  • Parking garage is probably more accurate since not all garages have more then one story. So maybe this is more then a UK/US issue. Vegaswikian 19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 19:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the Article needs to be changed

Multi-storey car park really is not a great title for several reasons. The arguments for keeping the article at its current title cited WP:ENGVAR as their support. However, they used follow the dialect of the first contributor, which is really a last resort. If following WP:ENGVAR, then the article should follow the established style and try to find words that are common to all. Therefore, "storey" should be replaced with a more dialect neutral word such as "level," and "car park" should be parking lot instead to maintain continuity throughout Wikipedia. 65.197.192.130 00:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If I search for "parking garage" - I end up here. So I don't see the big deal. Rklawton 12:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Just because something is at one title, it doesn't mean it can't be changed; thats the whole point of Wikipedia. I didn't say that the article should be moved to "parking garage"; personally, I think it should be changed to "Multi level parking lot" (to follow parking lot and have some uniformity on wikipedia) or "parking structure," which is a very accurate description of the article. As I have stated before, "multi-level car park" has a couple of words that couple be changed so as not to show preference to one dialect. 65.197.192.130 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but this has just been discussed so we now need to move on. The present name at least has the advantage of being meaningful in some jurisdictions which hybrid forms don't, bearing in mind that 'parking lot' is not a meaningful term in the UK, for example. TerriersFan 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
What was just discussed was moving the article to parking garage, which is not what I am talking about. I am trying to find a term that doesn't show preference to one dialect. Car park isn't widely used if used at all in the US. Parking lot, however, is the term used on wikipedia. If having parking lot/car park in the title is an issue, then a title without those terms should be found. 65.197.192.130 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this issue is quite dead yet. Multi-storey car park is a term that as an American I can discern the function but it is highly specific to the UK itself (ie: Storey instead of story). Many UK colonies today are using both UK spellings and US spellings and there is no preference or requirement for either in most colonies. As a result only in that small country will you find the term multi-storey car park as an official term. I think most of the English would world see it as a descriptive term but not exactly a short concise term which English would prefer to have. Other problems include the fact that "park" denotes a specific function, that is greenspace which is why the present tense declension "parking" is used "ie where is the parking at?" Added with the universal use of garage for an auxiliary storage house thus was born "parking garage." Also "Car park" sounds quaint to American ears, for example we have "dog park", "tot park", "walking park" which all denote specifically the function of movement within a geographic body (ie: animals, kids, humans, etc) and NOT storing or stopping something for a short period of time. All these notes explain why we simply cannot accept this UK term as the universal variant for them all because its the furthest from a universal term. For example is the "car park" the actual deck or the structure itself? What does it refer to? I doubt anyone says multi-storey car park completely. And it's a given that a parking garage IS multiple stories otherwise it becomes say a "parking field" "parking area" or as we say a "parking lot." Can a "car park" be only one-level then?(just saw parking lot) There are multiple inherent problems in this term and I doubt we can accept the UK variant blindly. .:DavuMaya:. 23:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(untab) Per WP:ENGVAR: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic.". Take a look, the article has always been 'Multi-storey...'.

  • "Other problems include the fact that "park" denotes a specific function, that is greenspace which is why the present tense declension "parking" is used "ie where is the parking at?"", as if parking is the incorrect word, yet the term you wish to see used is "parking garage", so there's no difference.
  • "Also "Car park" sounds quaint to American ears...". That's nice. Still, per WP:ENGVAR, it's no reason to change it.
  • "For example is the "car park" the actual deck or the structure itself? What does it refer to?" A car park is somewhere to park your car. A multi-storey is one variety of car park.

Enough reasons? Any other questions? TheIslander 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I requested that this page be moved to Multi-level parking lot; the reasoning behind this is posted above. 65.197.192.130 21:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose - this is a meaningless term in any jurisdiction. At least the present name is meaningful in some countries and is established in this article. TerriersFan 21:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And the current term is meaningless in some countries. What is wrong with trying to decide on title that is either UK/US neutral or follows the lead of the main article. Maybe parking structure is a better generic compromise? Vegaswikian 21:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment how about parkade? 132.205.44.134 22:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Parkade is a Canadian term, so it wouldn't really work. The point of the requested move was to get the ball rolling on finding a better title; the current title is blatantly biased. Parking structure seems like a good compromise: it doesn't show preference and it is used by architects. Also, I'm not sure how applicable it is, but some Google tests I tried seem to show Parking structure in wider use. 65.197.192.130 23:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There's nothing wrong with it as is as long as the article uses British English. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 00:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:ENGVAR says to find terms common to all. British English was used first, so minor spelling differences could side with British English. However, it doesn't mean that the title should only reflect British English. The title of this article should reflect the subject of this article, which can best be summed up as "a parking lot that is either:
1). above ground with:
a). one level and a roof over top or
b). more than one level with or without a roof
or
2). under ground with one or more levels.
or
3). Some combination of above and below ground parking
The word story/storey seems to carry the conotation of being above ground; does the term "Multi-storey car park" apply also to below ground parking in the UK? If so, it is the reversed situaation with parking garage; it may seem to sugest only underground parking, but can be used for both. 65.197.192.130 01:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - in British English a Multi-storey car park has:
  • At least two levels
  • At least one level above ground level
  • A roof (formed by the higher levels) above every level except the top level
  • A top level open to the skies
As I say above, parking lot is not only meaningless in British English but also annoying :-) HTH. TerriersFan 02:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How is "parking lot" annoying? "Car park" could be considered annoying by users of American English. Parking lot predates car park on Wikipedia. 65.197.192.130 11:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment spot the :-) above? TerriersFan 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry about that. 65.197.192.130 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem with "parking lot" is that it implies only one level. "Multi-story parking lot" is oxymoronic. Michael Hardy 22:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "Multi-level parking lot" was just a working title; if another title can be agreed upon by those in favor of a move or if someone can come come up with something better, I have no problem with the requested move to be changed to reflect that. That title was used in part to address some of the problems surronding the current title. I think that parking structure meets the criteria. 65.197.192.130 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • wrong move If you believe the article (which I'm not usre I'm inclined to, but that's another story) the article should be moved to parking structure. Mangoe 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Any objections to changing the Request Move (not the article's title) to parking structure. 65.197.192.130 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - this is becoming a mess. Changing the requested move half-way through the consultation when people have already commented is just not on. TerriersFan 19:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I oppose moving the article to "Multi-level parking lot." Everyone who has responded to the request has either opposed it or suggested that the article be moved to parking structure. It seems clear that the request to move the article to "Multi-level parking lot" has failed, but the idea of changing the article title to something other than "Multi-storey car park" is supported by some. Is it alright to remove the request, as a concensus has been met? 65.197.192.130 20:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Move Failed The a concensus was reached that the proposed title would not work. 65.197.192.130 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. 65.197.192.130 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move to Parking structure

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Multi-storey car park → Parking structure — The last move failed because some people did not want the page moved at all and those who did want it moved thought that the proposed title, Multi-level parking lot, did not fit the article. The new request is to move the article to Parking structure. There are a couple resons for this title:

  • It was the original article title about this subject
  • It describes the subject of the article accurately
  • It does not use dialect specific terms, unlike Multi-storey car park
  • It was title perfered by those who thought that the article should be moved —65.197.192.130 16:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support- See the reasoning posted above. 65.197.192.130 16:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see no reason for a move from an established title. Further, the proposed title is not used in any jurisdiction and it would be a step backwards to move from a title that is meaningful in at least some places. TerriersFan 16:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Actually, it is used by civil engineers and government building codes. Also, it recieves more hits in Google test than "multi-storey car park". If you really wanted to go with the most popular term, parking garage should be used. You may think that, logically, it shouldn't refer to above ground structures, but in general usage, it does. Why do you think that your variation of English should get preference? The situation on this page is somewhat similar to the argument of airplane vs. aeroplane; it was decided that the neutral fixed-wing aircraft should be used. 65.197.192.130 17:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Actually "parking structure" does seem to be used in the western USA, especially California, whose inhabitants possibly may not even suspect that the term is not universal in the USA. Michael Hardy 20:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Does no one else see the bias in multi-storey car park? What reasoning do you have for keeping it at the current title? 65.197.192.130 21:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment "Multi-storey car park" is entirely different from any terminology I am accustomed to, but yet it seems self-explanatory and inoffensive to me. Michael Hardy 22:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Why should it be kept? There are many reasons against it? 65.197.192.130 11:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: "Multi-storey car park " is the common name here in England. Anthony Appleyard 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
CommentI don't doubt it; it should (and is) be mentioned in the article. However, it has a couple of terms which are biased to British spelling, when there are alternitives available. 65.197.192.130 16:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - gee, dude, no-one seems to care. Biased? - this is just a title for a car park type. Provided there are redirects so folks can find the article it doesn't really matter what it is called. Leave well alone. Bridgeplayer 22:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The 'main article' is parking lot and it would be nice if this article somehow tied into that name. The current name is not US/UK neutral so a change is justified. The current name is overly restrictive in that it excludes single story parking garages. Parking structure is clearly more US/UK neutral then the current name. It does not exclude a specific class of covered parking area and is clearly a reasonable compromise. It has a name similar to the main article for parking facilities so from a style point is much less shocking spelling/name change then the current name. Vegaswikian 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This may be the third RM but it's a good idea, and should end discussion. Reasons as above. The way, the truth, and the light 01:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't know anyone who understands the term 'parking structure'. I see no good reason for a move. BlueValour 16:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you seriously think anyone would be confused by the term 'parking structure'? The way, the truth, and the light 17:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

The current title is biased by ENGVAR standards, but coming up with an appropriate title is proving difficult. So far, two requests to change the title have failed. 23:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.192.130 (talk • contribs)

In my view this is a case where common sense and a regard to the profitable use of all our times comes into play. Until the Anon IP got his/her teeth stuck into this, folks just got on with editing this article. It is hardly high profile and who cares if the title is technically biased? We are now on the third RM and this is becoming a ludicrous waste of time. There are many important contentious issues on WP (and I should be delighted to list some) and this is not one of them. This should now be finally closed so we can all move on. TerriersFan 22:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 07:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parkade?

You know, I've lived in Canada for most of my life, and the term "parkade" isn't specific to multi-storey parking lots - plenty of outdoor, unsheltered parking lots are called parkades. Risker 01:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Parking Garage

So, i read the last move's comments and they are rediculous. Just because multi-storey car oark was made first doesnt mean that parking garage is wrong. Lets do the google search check: Multi-storey car park-435,000. Parking garage-4,600,000. Also the name is misleading, car park sounds like the multi-storey (id prefer story) car park actually parks your car. parking garage infers that this is a garage where you park. and the enclosed space problem, as the US government puts is at [www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/glossary.html] A garage is "a space large enough to accommodate a car, with a door opening at least 6 feet wide and 7 feet high" parking garages do have doors, how else to you get in? it doesnt say that it is enclosed. MOVE THIS PAGE71.174.200.210 (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Where I now reside, in conventional usage "parking garage" means an indoor facility, whereas the topic of this article also includes open-air parking facilities. And you should learn that "infers" is not a synonym of "implies". To infer is to draw a conclusion, not to entail one. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed ad-nauseum, and each and every discussion has reached either a "don't move it" conclusion, or no conclusion. Fact of the matter is, this is just yet another example of variations between British and American English, and WP:ENGVAR makes it very clear that if an article has evolved using one type of English, it should remain as such, unless there are strong reasons otherwise - no strong reasons have thus far been cited. TheIslander 00:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both the above comments. We really have better things to do than reopen this again! This has been the title through the page's evolution and if I can live with Elevator rather than lift others can live with this one :-) TerriersFan (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
So well put - if there's any case to change this to parking garage, there's more of a case to change Elevator to Lift, so how's about we just respect the differences and leave both as they are. TheIslander —Preceding comment was added at 02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)