Jump to content

Talk:Barton-le-Clay

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

Bus stops

[edit]

Are pictures of bus-stops and shops really the right sort of entries for Wikipedia?

(Please sign, just add a hyphen and 4 tildes (the wavy thing above the Hash key): like this -~~~~).
I agree, such pics are not helpful to the reader at all. General views of the place, views of interesting areas, landmarks, whole streets, are OK. But, please, not bus stops or individual shops -Adrian Pingstone 10:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random info on a location (copied over fom Wikipedia:Help Desk by Adrian Pingstone)

[edit]

Having read the article Barton-le-Clay i am wondering if a list of shops, churhces, bus-stops and takeaways is really the right sort of info to be listed on Wikipedia. I dont want to just delete it without a view. What do others think?

No reason why not. I was thinking of delete, but, really, this is wikipedia. Someone may well write a history of the area. (Check out Talk:Doorstops for an example of entries that are saved. Scalene 12:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better to simply delete the section relating to the shops etc? GazMan7 13:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is a list of schools or churches somehow more worthy than a list of shops/bus routes/takeaways? Who decides what is encyclopedic? Is practical information not worthy of inclusion? (This is meant to stimulate debate, not mock, so please try and answer). Notinasnaid 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This type of listing is not what WP can accept. I've been contributing to WP since January 2003 and have seen many thousands of articles but this entry is really unusual in the detail it goes into. We can't accept this sort of listing for 2 reasons - we are not a Trade Directory and such information can change too rapidly. Will it always be kept up to date when, perhaps, the contributor moves away from WP? So the format should be radically changed but the article does not need to be deleted. I think the contributors only had to look at a dozen or so other town entries then they would have realised that their format was not the norm. - Adrian Pingstone 08:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To make sure I was on firm ground, when I said the Barton entry was unusual, I took a few towns at random from an atlas of the UK and looked up their WP entries to have a look at the style. I only rejected a town if its population was above 10,000 (population follows the name). So have a look at Settle 2420, Cullompton 8000, Carnforth 5500, Kirkby 2500, Ellesmere, Shropshire, Stamford Bridge, East Riding of Yorkshire 3394 and Malton 4000. Not one looks remotely like the Barton entry. So the house-style is clear – no super detailed listings of every shop and facility. It’s a shame, someone put so much work into these lists but they only had to view a few other entries to see the style. I might set about amending the article but I’d feel rotten while doing it!! - Adrian Pingstone 09:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this was completely my fault. When I first started editing Wikipedia I did it like this not knowing how the correct layout was, I will now change it. Lcarsdata (Talk) 12:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article looks good, and most of the info useful, i would only remove the overly detailed list of shops/buss tops etc. Cut down the info on churches, and highlight any interesting things about them. GazMan7 16:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Lcarsdata, for your very honest acceptance that the format was wrong, much appreciated. I have brought the article in line with the Wikipedia style for towns. I feel bad cutting down such a highly detailed piece of work by yourself, but if I didn't do it someone else would! - Adrian Pingstone 22:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Barton-le-Clay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Barton-le-Clay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barton-le-Clay. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barton-le-Clay&oldid=1205778150"