Talk:Barrington Tops National Park

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

Plane crashes[edit]

  • There are some discrepancies in information sources of aircraft crashes in the area - some sources cite locations outside the Barringtons, while other sources will cite other locations that I can't find (e.g. the DC3 - see links in the article, one cited Mt. Crawney, which is near Taree, the other cites Square Mountain).
    • Which crash gave Aeroplane Hill its name?
    • Some references mention books - some of these might give more details

--203.28.150.120 03:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, and I am not sure anyone here will. It will probably be best to have a look at the cited books. Thanks for adding that stuff, it is really interesting. --liquidGhoul 05:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plane crash section pointless[edit]

This may be interesting information to someone, but it's hardly useful or encyclopaedic. Planes crash anywhere and everywhere. I couldn't envisage an article about say, The Rockies, and expect to see a detailed list of all the planes that have ever crashed in the area. If there is a specific plane crash that has given its name to a hill, that's probably sufficently noteworthy, but the rest of it should go.120.18.153.80 (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They may crash everywhere in somewhere like the United States, but not in Australia. Plane crashes are reasonably infrequent even now, making them notable when they do happen. This is especially true in somewhere like the Barrington Tops, which has seen a higher proportion of crashes than most places in Australia. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be notable in aviation terms, but this article should primarily be about the Park itself, its flora, fauna, geography and history etc. Given the small amount of information in this article on these main topics, to have 3 links relating to the Park itself and 14 relating to aircraft crashes seems extremely disproportionate. I have removed the detailed list of crashes and their outcomes, but left the Section and the basic mention of the accidents and the general explanation of them. I honestly feel there is a better home for these details elsewhere. In general, this article needs a ton more information on its main topics, which is woefully lacking for anyone wanting to know more about this Park. I made the delete before checking the talk page for a response to my original comment, thinking the article has been abandoned for years, so please don't feel that I am blindly ignoring your response.120.16.38.133 (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The crashes that have occurred in the park are relevant to the park because they form part of its history. If anyting, the section should be expanded with information on the effects to the park caused by the crashes. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it if you feel that strongly about it. But it doesn't merit more space that the sections on the flora and fauna of the Park. This article is poor enough as it is, and as a user wanting to know about the Park before visiting it, it told me almost nothing of value. In the end, I went elsewhere to get the information I needed without having to wade through a lot of irrelevant drivel.120.16.90.4 (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 120.16.90.4 that the section on air crashes does not add much value to the article about the National Park. It is rather trivia than part of the history of the park as such, therefore its placing is questionable. I suggest this information should be removed, or at least moved to an article about the mountains (i.e.Mount Royal Range) since the planes colided with the mountain not the biota of the national park. Elekhh (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Barrington Tops are a specific part of the Mount Royal Range and the aircraft crashed there. It makes more sense for the crashes to be included in the more specific article, rather than a general article. I'm sorry that 120.16.90.4 didn't find what he wanted but that's not the fault of the aircraft crashes. Perhaps when he returns from his visit he'll be able to expand the article. I must say that I find the claim about having to wade through "irrelevant drivel" somewhat confusing. The aircraft crashes section is preceded by a fair amount of very relevant data. What more did you need? --AussieLegend (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree here. I think the article about Mount Royal Range could be expected to be more specific about he mountains, whereas the national park article should be more specific about the ecosystem. Elekhh (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With "irrelevent drivel", I was specifically referring to the sections on the Guesthouse fire and the Aircraft crashes section. Perhaps Elekhh's expression "trivia" would have been more appropriate. As to what I might have expected to see, I have been surprised at the lengthy mentions on other websites of Aboriginal sites, history of occupation and often violent interactions with early European settlers, surely notable, yet completely unmentioned here. These are matters of true historical and social interest, and I look forward to expanding my knowledge of this in the near future on visiting the Park.120.16.90.4 (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guesthouse section is immediately before the aircraft section, right near the end of the article so there is still a lot of relevant information that you had to wade through before you got to that part at the end of the article. The guesthouse was a very important part of the park. It was, for many years, the base from which very many people set out to explore the entire region, of which the National Park is only a small part, so it's a notable part of the park. Other than the 4WD tracks, it and the aircraft crashes are the most notable and well documented "features" of the region. Very little of any Aboriginal occupation of the area is known or documented, which is why it isn't here. Being rather mountainous, Aboriginals tended to avoid it for the most part, staying in the areas of the Barrington Tops that are outside the park. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I would imagine that it weren't the aircraft crashes which lead to the area be declared a national park and than part of a World Heritage Site... Elekhh (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't, but the aircraft crashes are still a part of the history of the area and, based on the 50 years that I've lived in the region, I'd have to say a notable part. There are bodies and wreckage still in the park that haven't been found and, as stated in the crashes section, the altitude and weather have contributed to those accidents. The mountainous terrain and general inaccessibility have hampered efforts to locate the bodies and wreckage even when, as was the case with the 1987 Macchi ejection, the crash site was known to within 2,000 feet. All these things are inextricably linked. Being a national park isn't the only thing that is relevant. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, and I start to recognise that is fair to mention aircraft crashes in the article. However I think that this article is not the right place to have a detailed description of all the aircraft crashes. I think these would be better placed in an article about flight safety in NSW or, as stated before, an article about the mountains. This national park article could have maybe one paragraph summary and a wikilink or even a See also link to the main article about all those crashes. Elekhh (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information is hardly detailed. There's barely a line on each incident. I'm not sure how what's there could be abbreviated. As I've already pointed out above, the accidents happened in the national park so this seems the appropriate article to mention them. I don't see why mentioning them in Mount Royal Range is more appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restarted indents

I'm sorry , but I'm struggling to accept AussieLegend's view of what's important to this article. Having checked these two websites: http://www.barringtons.com.au/ and http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/NationalParks/parkHome.aspx?id=N0002 I have found absolutely no mention of the guesthouse fire or the aircraft crashes that he believes are so important, nor even a mention of the existence of Aircraft Hill. Furthermore, the NSW government website clearly mentions a considerable history of Aboriginal use of the area and specifically mentions the existence of Aboriginal sites in the area. It still seems perverse to me to believe that anyone one wishing to visit the area would be much concerned with a local fire or downed aircraft. Who visits wildlife parks to observe these things?120.16.181.241 (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia, not a tourist guide, which is what your second last statement implies. Barrington Tops isn't a wildlife park either. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, thank you. But yet again you have failed to justify the inclusion of the two sections you are so busy defending. You have not demonstrated the notability you claim. Your own personal opinion of notablity is insufficient. I have clearly shown that important websites about the Park do not back up your claims of notability. All the information I have read clearly and repeatedly states the importance of its wildlife, including rare and endangered species. They also make it clear that the area is one of oustanding beauty, speaking for example of "[the] diverse beauty of the forests of the Barrington Tops region". This article is seriously underdeveloped as it is, and to continue to include these sections, both lengthier than sections on far more important, useful and relevant material, does the article an injustice.120.18.88.203 (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Barrington Tops 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barrington Tops 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barrington_Tops_National_Park&oldid=1205764728"