Talk:Blidworth

Unsourced/original research/personal commentary

I have annotated as {{citation needed span}} what I suspect is prose falling into the above criteria, added by Chemical Engineer in this 2017 change. Where references have been accessed, these appear to be anecdotal accounts at a local history site, falling short of WP:RS. Also, no mention of Old Blidworth or New Blidworth - appears to be WP:OR or supposition/WP:SYNTHESIS. I have never known of 'Old' Blidworth - just Blidworth and the old village; "old village" appears twice in the ref/anecdotal account, quite properly.

Also noted are excessive/trivial images where Chemical Engineer is the photographer/placing editor, contrary to WP:IMAGERELEVANCE ("Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative.") and WP:NOTGALLERY, specifically, File:Blidworth finger post 24 June 2017.jpg and File:Blidworth Will Scarlet Close 24 June 2017.jpg - a roadside signpost and housing cul-de-sac being essentially un-encyclopedic.

I don't find a section with four mere-mentions of churches and three images necessary; again, decorative. I would've liked to see an old, historic, welfare included as a before-and-after (File:Miners' welfare building - geograph.org.uk - 636287.jpg). I couldn't find a reliable date of demolition, or even a subsequent planning application.

It's a shame I have had to spend so much down-time on this; I have long-standing knowledge of Blid (as it's known colloquially), with family from 1930s and having visited regularly over a 40-year period from early 1960s (curtailed by deaths of close relatives, late of the Bottoms!). When I see things that don't add up, it makes me doubt myself, but only initially.

Look forward to your comments.-- 82.13.47.210 (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It was a little sketchy those references to the old/new areas, I have instead referred to them more generically. The other recommendations, have you seen the guidelines on writing about UK places? Adjust the article accordingly: Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements Regs, The Equalizer (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This Google search will show the equivalent of New Blidworth. New and Old are quite correct for Clipstone and Ollerton, but shouldn't be used to conflate into other places.

No, I don't care to trawl-through the (above) linked-page presently, or possibly even at all (just the title suggests an essay, 2006 origins). If you are implying I'm missing something fundamental - near to completing my 12th Wiki-year - then 'say' it.

I had hoped the incumbent editor would respond (I assume the ping worked correctly in this 'new' format), not one of a small handful controlling the wikiproject geography - I am aware that some of you pore over maps in order to extrapolate conclusions (I'll look for the Talk link later....). I haven't gone overboard with the templating and have tried to be sympathetic, but, to me, it's inappropriate that a headed Church section with no 'meat on the bones' was created just to, IMO, showcase the editor's own images. Check this for similarity where I have quoted "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article,.." at Talk.

I had come here to expand the article via a period hard source, but first I have to research the article history and slog through a clean up, then try to integrate the new prose (at two articles). Or not, choosing to leave an inaccurate article. When I access WP, I want it to be as right as possible, and that courtesy and responsibility - for my part - extends to the benefit of the general readership. As always, I have a few tabs left open and will think (sleep) on it. Thanks.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I provided the link (it's not an essay but a guidance document curated over time by the members of the WikiProject for UK geography and others) as it gives standardised, consensual recommended approaches when writing about certain aspects of Britain's geography. It includes tips on obtaining the highest of Wiki content assessment ratings and awards for articles, as you want it to be as right as possible achieving this should be what you are looking for. As to fundamentals, I put adjust accordingly because if you want something done more correctly then have a stab at it as per Wikipedia:Be bold.

I won't knock an editor who has provided some reasonable content, the Wiki policies and guidance take a lot of reading, but it is great to see contributions regardless and this will inspire others to tweak the content and make it more encyclopaedic over time. I am not actually a member of the project, but have written many sizeable geographic articles (with a bias on Notts/Derbys) and had to do a lot of research, it comes with the territory of craving such improvement. Regs, The Equalizer (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)