Talk:Burnham-on-Sea: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:36, 20 August 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Somerset C‑class Mid‑importance

	Somerset portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset 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.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

UK geography C‑class Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Population

Why was it shown as 21k? What does the 'whole of the built up area' mean?

Using Ward boundaries i used the following lower Super Output Areas to find a pupulation of 13k in dataset :

Super Output Area Lower Layer Sedgemoor 005D
Super Output Area Lower Layer Sedgemoor 004C
Super Output Area Lower Layer Sedgemoor 004D
Super Output Area Lower Layer Sedgemoor 005A
Super Output Area Lower Layer Sedgemoor 004B
Super Output Area Lower Layer Sedgemoor 004A
Super Output Area Lower Layer Sedgemoor 002E
Super Output Area Lower Layer Sedgemoor 004E
Super Output Area Lower Layer Sedgemoor 002D

Census 2001 reports 13k.

Anyone disagree? Bjrobinson 10:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tree frog

Congratulations to User:195.194.86.1 for spotting that the official animal of Burnham is not the tree frog and removing the fact and accompanying citation. This "fact" has been in Wikipedia for a very long time, introduced as a joke, and the addition of a true fact, properly cited that nearby Brent Knoll was call the Isle of Frog, lent the spurious claim some credibility. The tree frog incident is a prefect illustration, if one is needed, that there is an awful lot of crap in Wikipedia and that you should not take all you read here as fact. Of course, the very last thing I'm ever going to confess is involvement in this incident ;-) --TimTay (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

b.t.w. what really makes me laugh about this is the effect that it has had on downstream consumers of Wikipedia content. A great example is the commercially run Information Britain website which offers paid-for advertising for holiday properties etc. in the town. Its write-up on Burnham includes the tree frog and Isle of Frogs information. Classic! --TimTay (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text on tree frogs appears to have been added on 16th Feb 2007 by User:217.35.94.43 with this diff with the additional sentence about Brent Knoll being added by User:Cheesy mike on 24 May 2007 with this diff. It shows something that several editors (including me) have since edited the article & not spotted it. It is obviously bad of the anon editor to add the spurious "fact", but it could be seen as worse for a registered editor to knowingly compound the error rather than deleting or changing the fact they know to be false. "Downstream consumers" and their users can worry about themselves, but this sort of "joke" doesn't enhance the reputation of wikipedia.— Rod ^talk 14:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Rod. I suspect Cheesy Mike is now a little ashamed of his actions. --TimTay (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if Cheesy Mike were still an active contributor he should edit this article to at least GA level - in case the incident gets media coverage.— Rod ^talk 15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

burnham-on-sea.com fails WP:ELNO

burnham-on-sea.com is a site about Burnham that contains some useful information, but it fails on WP:ELNO on the first criteria. It is also, in my opinion, listed to get advertising click-links for the person who hosts the site. If it is an official site for the town then it wouldn't need large amounts of banner advertising. It doesn't belong on wikipedia, it is spam. Discuss. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 :::Good point Rod. I suspect Cheesy Mike is now a little ashamed of his actions. --[[User:TimTay|TimTay]] ([[User talk:TimTay|talk]]) 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 ::::Perhaps if Cheesy Mike were still an active contributor he should edit this article to at least GA level - in case the incident gets media coverage.&mdash; [[User:Rodw|Rod]] <sup>[[User talk:Rodw|talk]]</sup> 15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
+== burnham-on-sea.com fails WP:ELNO ==
+[http://www.burnham-on-sea.com burnham-on-sea.com] is a site about Burnham that contains some useful information, but it fails on [[WP:ELNO]] on the first criteria. It is also, in my opinion, listed to get advertising click-links for the person who hosts the site. If it is an official site for the town then it wouldn't need large amounts of banner advertising. It doesn't belong on wikipedia, it is spam. Discuss. --[[User:Simple Bob|Simple Bob]] ([[User talk:Simple Bob|talk]]) 21:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)