Talk:Pembroke, Pembrokeshire

Wales Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

UK geography Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A work in progress

My idea is to flesh out the pembrock entry with local history. I refer to records held by the National Library of Wales, CADW, and the Diocese of St Davids.This is very much a work in progress, any contributions welcome, my tecnical knolage is low so please repar any bad links and bad formating. --Iancampbell 11:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see someone working on the article. Can I ask you use inline citations, so people can check your facts. These are pretty simple to do, just put the following after the sentence which needs to be referenced. You need to make sure there's a gap between the website address and website title, and that there are no gaps between the brackets and the text (unlike I've done below).

< ref >[ http://www.websiteaddress.com Website Title ]< /ref >

Please also reference non-website sources, titles,authors and page numbers of books etc. using the above format (but without the website address) Alexj2002 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

It looks good. Well done to the person who placed my photo of the main street at the top. ;) Wikiwisher 12:16, 11 January 2007 (GMT)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pembrokewalesaerial.jpg

Image:Pembrokewalesaerial.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved for a variety of reasons, but clearly there is a consensus against this proposal. Jenks24 (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pembroke, Pembrokeshire → Pembroke, Wales – This is analogous to Lincoln, as described in WP:UKPLACE, even though it is not explicitly spelled out for Wales. Same logic applies - "Pembrokeshire" is not that useful as a disambiguator, "Wales" is much more helpful. And Pembroke is unique within Wales. Nilf anion (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move. I'm not sure that Pembroke, Wales is any better than Pembroke, Pembrokeshire and in fact I prefer the latter, as List of places in Pembrokeshire has many examples of appending the county to places similarly named elsewhere. For me, it should go further - if Pembroke in Pembrokeshire is the origin of most (if not all) of the places around the world using the name, then the article should just be called Pembroke, with a link to the disambiguation page noted at its head. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pembroke is exceptional within Pembrokeshire - as using "Pembrokeshire" is nearly a tautology and if you do not know where Pembroke is, its not reasonable to expect "Pembrokeshire" to clarify its location. In contrast. "Wales" at least tells you it is in Wales - which is much more recognisable.

The Welsh Pembroke is far from the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and "coming first" is not a reason for declaring it such, especially when Pembroke, Ontario receives more traffic.--Nilf anion (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken. I've read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and can see that my argument is not one that would hold sway, so I'll leave it there. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Pembroke is in Pembrokeshire. There is no need to append the region "Wales" when "Pembrokeshire" is appended. The present form is perfectly normally. RGloucester — ☎ 14:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What matters is that when presented with a list of alternatives it is easy to find the one wanted. Pembroke, Pembrokeshire is clearly distinguished in the disambiguation page being listed under United Kingdom and with Wales being mentioned. Leave well alone please. SovalValtos (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Pembrokeshire is an adequate disambiguator for Newport, Pembrokeshire, Camrose, Pembrokeshire, Burton, Pembrokeshire, etc so see no reason why not for Pembroke, Pembrokeshire. Zarcadia (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pembroke, Pembrokeshire. 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: 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) 19:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broadband notability

If the material has been sufficiently notable to be included, my opinion is that it should be retained, with appropriate changes in wording and tenses. That is unless it is considered to be given undue weight.SovalValtos (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SovalValtos and Gareth Griffith-Jones - I guess leave it for now, and I'll see if I can find some more recent info. Tony Holkham (Talk) 00:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might this better be covered at County level, perhaps in a communications section? There should be plenty of material: Abermawr cable, stagecoach, semaphore telegraph, sea Signal station, telephone etc.SovalValtos (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible public services section

I am considering the addition of an optional Public services section, partly inspired by the work of User:Alnitak3 on other articles. Other than the obvious water, sewerage, gas, electricity, fire and ambulance the current broadband content could be included. Alnitak3 has had to buy hard copies of books to source electricity history. I am not in a position to do that though I think the history of electricity and gas-works etc would be just as important as the modern water supply etc. Do any other users have access to a large library for such?SovalValtos (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]