Talk:Playground

---

Re: Technology. Playground equipment is a technology. Steven McCrary 03:19, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Merge from Soviet playground

Soviet playgrounds seem essentially to have been just playgrounds; perhaps a sentence or two (and one or more of the rather nice photos) could be used in this article, but I can't really see the point of a separate article for the Soviet kind. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, this was obviously less controversial than I suspected it might be; I've carried out the merge. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

This article would benefit from the use of sources. I've cited within the article one of the more glaring statements of unsupported fact. Rklawton 14:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Technology

Why is this in WikiProject Technology?--Hjal 02:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

more pictures available

I'm not sure how to best work them into this article, so I'm posting them here.

• Image:PlaygroundSpringHorse.JPG - a playground 'spring horse'.
• Image:AccessiblePlayground.JPG - an accessible playground / playscape.

--Versageek 23:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Safety

This article spends most of its time discussing playground safety. I think this is a commercial bias; there are people in the business of selling "safety" features. The real purpose of a playground is play.

I'd suggest adding more on play, such as the skills developed and equipment designs to facilitate it. We could possibly move/split the safety stuff to another article, or at least make it less prominent.

-- Rixs (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Playpark

I added the term playpark, which is used at least in the UK and South Africa. Examples: Arbroath playpark vandals spoil the fun, Playpark slide for big kids. Commons offers about 120 photos bearing the term playpark, nearly all of them originally from geograph.org.uk. Maybe somebody could add some info about in which country the different terms are used. --Kallewirsch (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. In the UK 'Playground' tends to refer to the ground around a school - which need not have any play equipment at all. 217.42.152.84 (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible source

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2013/01/loose_parts_are_having_a_moment_putting_the_play_back_in_playgrounds_with.single.html has some information, a few international comparisons, a type of employee called a playworker, and links to some sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible Source 2

I'd like to suggest one more to be considered for a citation: https://ezplaytoys.com/blogs/blog/benefits-of-indoor-jungle-gym-for-kids. There are sections asking for further citations. Several cases might be a good fit. Not sure if I was supposed to open a new thread with this suggestion so I went with less clutter. ChubSona (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

History

A recent article in the Boston Globe puts the date of the city's first playground at 1885, making it the first playground in America. http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/03/28/how-american-playground-was-born-boston/5i2XrMCjCkuu5521uxleEL/story.html . The article would be an excellent additional source material given its focus on the history of the playground.

Samuel Wilderspan

Preschool and his own article credit Samuel Wilderspin with the invention of the playground. I do not think that this is an uncontested interpretation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Adventure Playgrounds

I was redirected here, from a search for Adventure Playgrounds (APs), but the page does not even mention APs.

I know that APs is (or used to be) pretty well established in the UK at least, so I find it odd that there is no information about them on the English WP. Is there a good reason for this? Perhaps someone knows?

Background information

In Denmark we have a tradition for several types of playgrounds and (non-educative) daycare institutions. I am not sure if similar institutions even exists elsewhere, except perhaps Sweden? They are known as: "Fritidshjem" and "Byggelegeplads".

• "Fritidshjem" (lit.: Spare-time-home) are a type of after-school-care centres, but with playgrounds and various assorted facilities, small animal farms are popular and with specially trained adults employees (a bit like playworkers).
• "Byggelegeplads" (lit.: Construction-playground) have much of the same functions as Fritidshjem, but with a less strict structure for the kids, broader in their scope and facilities. Generally they are more akin to APs.

I hope someone have some clues. I might write up an article on APs in the future perhaps (then I can also describe the Danish "Fritidshjem" and "Byggelegeplads" there). If you have some good sources on APs that you wants to share, please post below.

RhinoMind (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Advertisement

Persian Ghasrebazi is a playground equipment supplier from Iran which produce high quality polyethylene playground. for more information please visit our website on: www.ghasrebazi.org ~~ghasrebazi~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghasrebazi (talk • contribs) 07:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Merge from Cold War playground equipment

It seems a separate article here is not really warranted, and its small amount of content could easily be merged with the Playground page.Ljgua124 (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm researching an exhibition about the cold war, and found this page very useful / possible worthy of further expansion --BirchallDanny (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - This topic is notable enough for its own article. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge from Playscape

The latter article has an “advert” tag on it, and having an article that uses a different word to describe the same thing sounds a little redundant. When merged, I’d recommend that the term “playscape” be redirected here. EpixAndroid (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2021

https://www.toddlerreview.co.uk/benefits-of-having-a-climbing-frame-in-your-garden/

Citation needed for line 'Evidence suggests that children who participate in physical activity improve their self-esteem.' blog a perfect fit. 51.52.119.231 (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a reliable source (WP:BLOGS). – Thjarkur (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

Playgrounds are only for younger kids studies show that the ages between 5-18 can also have the same amount of fun! I edit wiki98 (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Commercial playgrounds into Playground

The distinction of commercial and residential playgrounds is only meaningful in terms of the differing regulations governing public and private spaces. These don't constitute separate topics, and there is already a section on regulation in the main Playground article. Ibadibam (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep them separate, Commercial playgrounds article obviously needs work and images. Instead of trying to get rid of it, improve it. Commercial playgrounds and Playground are similar at times but can be vastly different. As commercial playgrounds have to compete non commercial playgrounds and justify their cost of admittance, to attract attendance. The history of Themed commercial Playgrounds is also of note and would better on Commercial Playgrounds Than on playgrounds. Example the styles of play ground equipment themed to each restaurant chain and other various equipment is only available at commercial playgrounds. Some which are now historical information. Take the well known Ball_pit playground device it is mainly found at commercial playgrounds due to the cost and upkeep required than the normal playground equipment at schools and public parks. That is before commercial playground entertainment centers are brought up and added into the subject.

There is far more than just "regulations governing public and private commercial spaces. You aren't asking for merge on private playgrounds but on a separate section of the industry.

Delete and Merge should not be used as often as they are, unless pages are thoroughly proven to be the exact same thing, or personal Vanity pages but for example how many 1st hit One-hit_wonder bands and songs were vanity pages at one time... This merge deletion-ism needs to be treated as the vandalism that it actual is.

If merged, these two articles Playground & Commercial playgrounds will have the the same problem that happens again and again when articles are merged into articles. The information will be condensed(devalued), then ""cleaned up"" more removed over time as the article is ""too large"" and that section doesn't fit as well. Meanwhile no one adds and improves the merged section(if in the rare case that happens then it needs moved back to the page that was deleted, basically proving the merge was a bad decision) There is no reason to merge, the results of merging is bigger but lower quality articles with less information. Keep and if you have an issue, spend the time improving the article. Research the differences between the types, the types of equipment differences, the different environments, the different culture, the different play ground theory for behaviors, for educative play, for risk play building up.

If anyone else wants to justify this merge, do you justify that Fender_(vehicle) and all the various other vehicle part pages should all be merged down in Vehicle ? Do we really need an entire article on the trunk or boot(British) part of the car? Actually yes we do., but those were once text only article at one time with no images. What about oars and paddles or if Boat and Ship being merged together. Then what about these Fishing_industry , Commercial_fishing that both should go into Fishing ? They're the same thing to someone doesn't understand the subject matter. Should they be merged? No they shouldn't and following that logic neither should Playground and Commercial playgrounds be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1590:9A30:D9BC:8682:FF2:F24F (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. The Commercial playgrounds article is poorly written and deals almost exclusively with the United States, both problems that are present in certain places throughout the Playground article, as well as appearing highly irrelevant. We should be focusing on improving the Playground article and not adding more poor content to it. Redtree21 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, per Redtree21 (and explicitly not per the IP editor above them). This indeed shouldn't be a separate article, but there just isn't anything worthwhile to merge. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 01:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Closing - I'm removing the tag for this merge discussion, since a deletion discussion ended with a redirect to Playground. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Commercial_playgrounds. If an editor wants to add a section about commercial playgrounds to playground, they're welcome to do so... and they can look at the history of Commercial playgrounds to see if there's any sources or text that would be useful. Suriname0 (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2023

Please link our website too: Best Indoor and Outdoor Playground Equipment Manufacturer Funridersindia (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

No, that is promotional, which is not permitted on Wikipedia —Bruce1ee^talk 11:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Protected Page

Why is this article protected? It has a few mistakes that need fixing and numerous additions can be made for more information about playgrounds, design, materials, risks and benefits to society... Rplaygroundman (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It appears that we had a problem with WP:SOCKING in the past. That's when someone creates an account and pretends to be a new editor, when they are actually a banned editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I see. Can this page be unprotected again? Rplaygroundman (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

You can make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (there's a section there), or you could make six edits to other pages and wait two more days, and your account will be old enough to edit this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

New information on the history of the playground

This academic book was published recently on the history of playgrounds in the UK (it's available to read for free online): https://uolpress.co.uk/book/designed-for-play-childrens-playgrounds-and-the-politics-of-urban-space-1840-2010/

It provides new information and disproves a number of claims made on this Wikipedia page, including for example:

In 1840s London, the Home & Colonial Infant School playground included seesaws, climbing ropes and parallel bars - a public domain image is available here: https://wellcomecollection.org/works/asme9tpk/images?id=nptqbyyp

The earliest public playgrounds were created in Salford and Manchester parks in 1846 (not 1859 as currently suggested by reference 7)

The 'response to mass motorization' is also not correct for the UK at least - playgrounds appeared more regularly in the 1890s as the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association create children's playgrounds long before cars were common on the streets.

I'm happy to edit the page with this revised information if I can be granted permission? PlaygroundHistorian (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like an exciting new source, @PlaygroundHistorian. Thanks for the note.

There are three ways we can proceed from here:

1. We can ask Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to turn off the protection for everyone.
2. We can ask for you to be exempted from this type of protection on all articles (sorry, it can't be done on just one article) at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed.
3. You can make five more quick edits, and automatically get the permission to edit the page. (Replying to this will count as one of them.)

The first is probably feasible but could take a day or two. The third option is definitely the fastest and most reliable. The second option is not popular.

As for what to put in the article, one doesn't necessarily want to assume that any book is the sole correct answer (anyone can have an unfortunate typo or even over-interpret some evidence, etc.), so some things will simply need to be replaced with the correct information, but others might need a "he said/she said" format, or perhaps a "It was long thought that ____, but...". One wants to be fair to all the "sides".

Just on the off chance that you have written the book yourself, or you know the person who wrote the book (closely, not just a "maybe I met them once at a conference somewhere"), then I want to point you at WP:SELFCITE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the info and links - will go for option 3 and bear in mind your other points too! PlaygroundHistorian (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)