Jump to content

Talk:Sleaford

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Charles Matthews (talk | contribs) at 21:05, 26 February 2015 (→Reversion and WP:CITEVAR: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Considered for deletion??

I cannot believe that the wikifascists are considering this for deletion! Yet there it is, a banner declaring such, at the top of the page, dated June 2007. A classic example of why people no longer bother with creating great wikipedia pages like this one. (Anon 23:32, 2nd Aug 2007.

And currently there is a Refimprove banner on a page with 23 citations. If it is still there in a months time I will remove it.--Brunnian (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post Dissolution Landowners

Quote:

  • "From 1556 the ownership of the town and its lands passed from the church to local absentee landowners."

Question:

Rename?

Should we rename Sleaford to Sleaford, Lincolnshire as that is what Wikipedia Naming Conventions dictates. --Jhfireboy I'm listening 08:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. We'd only have it at Sleaford, Lincolnshire if there were other important Sleafords, which there aren't even any other ones. Morwen - Talk 08:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is another Sleaford in Hampshire. --Jhfireboy I'm listening 08:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Ok, then we need to make a diambiguation link to it because it isn't a big one. I shall do this. Morwen - Talk 09:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


true?

"These three schools feed a unique joint sixth-form consortium (pictured below).Even though the school has had many good ofsted reports many of the students come out depressed and dont get good grades There are also the nurseries. They are Redcroft Day Nursery, Woodside Children's Nursey, Happy Day Nursery and Sleaford Day Nursery."

Is there any references for this?

I can tell you that it is true, although Happy Days has since closed down. I will endeavour to find a research Mxb design (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we not need some mention about the close of flicks nightclub? 91.104.11.207 (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done :) --83.105.91.203 (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC) (errant)[reply]

Notable Sleafordians

9 January 2012.

Of 18 “Notable Sleafordians”, 11 are acknowledged in their article as having some kind of association with Sleaford. However, Wikipedia does not self-reference – just because an article says someone was a “Sleafordian” in some fashion, doesn’t mean that another article can use it for reference. Of the 11 that note Sleaford, 9 are not referenced for necessary proof:

The other 2 have viable refs that I have now transferred to the article:

All have editorialising as uncited description added next to the names. These names could be associated with Sleaford, but WP is cornerstoned with Verifiability. Also there are many of the reffed and unreffed that state a tenuous link with Sleaford, and sometimes suck-in “notables” from the surrounding area and villages. The yardstick is that the notable was born in Sleaford and/or spent a considerable time of their life in Sleaford. There is no proof of this for any except for the two referenced.

I have added a template to the section questioning the validity of the list. My view is that only the verified Saunders and Thompson should remain for now; the others removed until references for association are found. A less radical view would be to remove all but those who mention Sleaford in their articles. The 7 that have no refs in the Sleaford article and make no mention of Sleaford in their own article should certainly go. Acabashi (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to be unnecessarily sarcastic (or enter into a flame war), but I think you're being unnecessarily harsh in making a statement such as "The 7 that have no refs in the Sleaford article and make no mention of Sleaford in their own article should certainly go." As you clearly have a lot more time available than others of us who contribute to this article, might I please suggest you visit the local history section of Sleaford's library on Market Place, where I'm sure you will find more than adequate information on the Hussey's, Broughtons, Handley and other families to keep you occupied? - GrahamSmith (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list; convention on lists is that if a referenced article exists on the subject that verifies the link then that is acceptable. I agree that any individuals without their own article would need a source - however if someone has a Wikipedia article (and are thus notable) with a cited connection to Sleaford then this is meets WP:V. Verification does not require us to use what I like to term the "brain-dead level" of referencing :) and as far as I can see all of the listed individuals have reasonable (some can be improved; but you should aim to improve them rather than delete). -Errant (chat!) 18:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way; I wrote the Handley's article and I assure you it is adequately referenced that they lived in Sleaford - perhaps you need to take a closer look :) and as Graham says research the offline sources. At the local history level you are not likely to find anything worthwhile online, legwork or nothing :) --Errant (chat!) 18:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand I agree a few of them are a bit tenuous; Mark Wallington (footballer), for example. Not really a "Sleafordian", so I removed him. --Errant (chat!) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about some of the above. For example, if you allow Jennifer Saunders and Bernie Taupin, you must allow Mark Wallington because he was not only born at Sleaford, but, to my own knowledge, also lived there significantly longer (for at least 17 years) than either Saunders (known to have been born in Sleaford but lived in Cranwell only for the first few years of her life) or Taupin (known to have been born at Anwick (which is not the same as Sleaford) and had moved out of the area by the age of 11).
You might argue that Saunders should be retained, despite her short connection, but Taupin certainly ought to go as his connection with the town is extremely tenuous.
In addition, of the two references in Saunder's WP article, one (bfi screenonline) is as reputable a source as, say, imdb.com, and as the other (The Times) requires a paid subscription to access the web site, it is therefore inaccessible to ad hoc enquiries to use as a source.
I would be interested on all of your takes on this. Not only because of its impact on Mark Wallington, but others presently or previously included on the list (for example: Saunders, Taupin, Abi Titmuss, Gary Crosby etc). There seems to be a choice between operating on one set (as at present, and reinstating some who have been removed) or another (remove some who are present but for whom there are no acceptable and verifiable citations.
If there are some rules, or exceptions, let us apply them even-handedly. Twistlethrop (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sleaford/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Higgsbozone (talk · contribs) 22:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I would certainly say Sleaford is a good article. I have checked all the sources which are reliable. The prose style is good. The only changes I would make would be a fuller list of notable Sleafordians. Also the main picture of St Denys Church could be a cleaner one without cars parked in front of the building. Apart from this it is a great, well resourced, well written and well researched article. Having grown up in the town and studied its history at school I can say that it is a factual, well done piece.--Higgsbozone (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Higgsbozone:, thank you for your comments. I notice that you are a relatively new editor and that you don't appear to have conducted a GA review before. I think it might be beneficial for you to ask one of the GA mentors to have a look over your comments and the article—the page is here Wikipedia:Good Article help/mentor. It's probably best to contact someone on the list who says that they have an interest in geography or places. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
2p: here's a picture I took for the St Denys' article - File:St_Denys'_Church,_Sleaford.JPG, without cars :) --Errant (chat!) 13:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I chose the picture in use at present because it seems to capture the church and the market place quite well. The picture you suggest is good and shows off the church nicely, but it doesn't show the market place at all. The one in use at the moment was also taken on a sunny day. Obviously, the cars are a downside, but I don't think it's too much of a problem. If it is a big deal, it can always be swapped. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Makes sense. It wasn't the nicest day to take photos. I keep meaning to get out and do some nicer ones. --Errant (chat!) 23:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice photo, which is why it works quite well on St Denys' article. I do think Sleaford could do with some more good quality photographs over at the Commons—there aren't many decent ones of the high street or Northgate, for instance. The recreation ground and the football park aren't covered at all and a decent snap of the Hub on a sunny day would also be a good addition. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note. Because this has now been listed in the report as an "old review" (20th on the list), I thought it best to add a note concerning its review. The original reviewer has not responded and, as per this discussion, User:Ritchie333 has committed to review it, but understandably this may take some time. It should therefore remain open until he closes it. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I've been totally sidetracked with other stuff. I've got to get Talk:Arab street/GA1 closed down as I've been sitting on it for over a week, then I'll see if I can tackle this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, there's no rush. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I suggested at the article's peer review that Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements provides an excellent template for the structure of such an article and think it should at least follow the suggested format if it is to acquire Good Article status. It also needs a copyedit to remove a lot of redundancy. J3Mrs (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @J3Mrs: I've corrected the miles to metres. Where are these redundancies? If you let know, I can remove them. I've read over this many times and got rid of quite a few; but I think when one is too close to an article, it is easy to read over these things. I believe the article contains all of the relevant sections from WP Geography—what do you feel is missing/different that needs to be changed? P.S. Thank you for making some changes to the article. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I've removed some, use them as examples. As regards WP Geography can you start with the History section? Most other settlement articles do. Its the order of sections that seems rather strange to me, (I've contributed to quite a few settlement articles). The info seems fine, the prose needs a bit of work. For example I'm not sure what "and the town was frequented by the major land-owners, the Bishops of Lincoln." is supposed to convey. I think I'd remove it.J3Mrs (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I will read over it today and rephrase that sentence. As for the Geography section, I think it makes more sense to explain where the town is before its history, because it is that geographical setting which puts the history in context; I can change this if necessary, but that's my rationale. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I'd say most settlement good articles, and I'm deliberately not pointing to those I've contributed to, start with the History section. I think consistency is a good thing and is why so much effort was put into providing those excellent guidelines. I've read the whole article now and copyedited the Lead. It has a wealth of detail, maybe in places too much, it is only supposed to be a summary, not the sum total of everything written about it. J3Mrs (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't really understand the logic behind the geography vs. history section thing, but I also like consistency and so I will move it. (Perhaps let me know when you are done copyediting and I can do it then—edit conflicts can be a pain!) I also feel that there might be too much detail, but I am not sure what to remove. If you notice anything not worth keeping, let me know. I am very grateful for the copyediting you are doing on the article and I really do appreciate the time you are putting into it. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I'm stopping for now but I'll continue next week. The section on the RAF in Public services is oddly placed, history would be better. J3Mrs (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you once again for this, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'm suffering from interruptions in my broadband service which is making this difficult. Can I say though that the article is reading like a series of articles not a summary. I can't fault the amount of research you've done but there is way too much detail and I don't know what to leave out. Do the secondary schools have their own articles? If they do the detail would be best moved there and just a linked couple of sentences left here. Just a suggestion. J3Mrs (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J3Mrs, I have trimmed back the section. I think there should be some brief description of each school, because the it seems to conform to Wikipedia:Gazetteer, and it would be very useful for readers. However, I have stripped it right back. Let me know what you think. Thank you again for all the work you are putting into this, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I have also trimmed back the sports and places of worship sections. —Noswall59 (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am aware that the landmarks section is way too detailed. It does need to be trimmed significantly. I am currently working on a list of listed buildings (in my sandbox), so the architecture of the town will be summarised there. —Noswall59 (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Good job on the Education and the rest of what you've done today. I'll leave the Landmarks to you and good luck with your list. J3Mrs (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to the end, at last. I expect you think I've butchered it but it is of a more manageable size for a settlement article now. Good luck with the review, I hope you get a reviewer soon. J3Mrs (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more comments. I mostly pruned material and I see my pruning has received another copyedit and multiple links. I've just moved Geography to be consistent with other settlement articles. It is still very long for a settlement of its size and has a lot of sub headings. Still needs some work and I'd suggest at the very least:

@J3Mrs: Thanks for all this. I have removed the 1st para of the Sleafordians section (it was largely covered in the history section) and moved the heraldry section, though I see you have split the admin section up, which works much better. I have also done away with the "charity" subsection under culture: I am not sure how notable it was and it did not seem to fit awfully well, though it can always go back. The headers under culture and transport seemed unnecessary now that each subsection is only really a paragraph in length. The article is long, but it is also 16k shorter than Peterborough; granted it's a city, but it's also FA and has forked sections for local government, transport and education. Anyway, thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
It's much better now. I've found it very interesting. Must call in next time en route to Boston or North Norfolk, it looks like a good place to stop. J3Mrs (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's been nearly a month since the above, and Noswall59 and J3Mrs seem to be satisfied that the article is ready for review. Ritchie333, do you still intend to review it, or should we put it back into the nomination pool in the hopes of finding a new reviewer, since the original reviewer, Higgsbozone, is clearly ineligible and inactive besides. Please let us know here. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: just to confirm I am happy for this to be reviewed now - the copyediting done by J3Mrs and some trimming back the pair of us did has got the article to a level I'm happy with. I would welcome a review by @Ritchie333:, but I just want it to get looked at properly; if that means putting it back in the pool, then so be it. A shame, but hopefully someone will come along. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Noswall59: - I'm sorry, I've not had the time to properly sit down and look at this. I know I should have done, but I got distracted by improving articles myself. If I can possibly find time this week, I will. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: that's fine, no worries – I will look forward to hearing from you. Thanks again for taking this up, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over two weeks since the above, and Noswall59 has requested that I close this review and put the nomination back into the reviewing pool. Noswall59, best of luck in finding someone quickly. Ritchie933, if you still want to review it, you can always select it for review yourself if you get there before another reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Sleafordians

In the Notable Sleafordians section it notes "Two explorers are linked with the town:" but only names one, Cecil Rhodes. Keith D (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up on this - I've removed this. It was a left over reference to a previous person who was actually from nearby Aswarby. Best wishes, —Noswall59 (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Reversion and WP:CITEVAR

Re reversion of use of a citation template: six months ago there were plenty of uses of {{cite web}}, for example. I'm having difficulty reconciling the WP:CITEVAR guideline with their removal.

The reversion of the link to Francis Bugg was clearly wrong. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Matthews: Hello, I get that I shouldn't have reverted the link - that was a genuine error and my fault - I didn't notice that you had added it. Thank you for doing so.
However, I reverted the edit because the article now has no citation templates other than the one you added, which seems to me to be against the MoS (at least insofar that the format used by the template is different from that used elsewhere). Since autumn, I have expanded this article massively - essentially giving it a total rewrite, something which has also expanded the number of sources (from 40-ish to well over 300). The citations used before did tend to use the template, but it was by no means consistent. Regardless, as a result of the rewrite, few (if any) of the sources which remain are the same as those which were in the article prior to that change, and so I am not sure that CITVAR applies here. It is not like I've only changed all the citations to suit a preference - I have rewritten the article. I reverted because the citations should be in a consistent style, and by changing one citation to incorporate a template, you have made that one citation inconsistent with the rest. I don't want to edit war: I thought I should explain myself here. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for the explanation: I'm not often reverted, so I make a point of understanding what is at issue.

In the case of {{cite ODNB}}, I recommend its use because, for one thing, it is a well-developed template that routes the link through a DOI, which should prevent any future "link rot". That is on the technical and idealistic side. I happen to be involved in some major projects around the ODNB.

But as for the social side, there are ways of doing things. The guideline mentions "if you believe [the citation style] is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page". That is a matter of good practice. Doing a major rewrite doesn't confer ownership, as you'll appreciate. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sleaford&oldid=648991882"