This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
since when does beverley have a lion...
BEVERLEY ACTUALLY DOES HAVE A LION! THEY KEEP IT NEAR THE MEMORIAL HALL HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO BEVERLEY
I have reverted the recent change to the population in the infobox as the change was out of alignment with the text. Unfortunately I cannot locate a reference for either the 29,210 or 29,110 figure. Can anyone provide a reference for either of these figures? Keith D ( talk) 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
For this reason National Statistics prefers the urban area definition for comparative purposes - ie the contiguous built-up area where the gap between buildings does not exceed 50 metres. Otherwise most of the housing built in the past 30-plus years gets excluded because technically it is situated in adjacent parishes. Jameswilson ( talk) 23:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: - this has become a centralised discussion for changes on Market Weighton, Selby and Beverley - much easier to have a single place for discussion rather than separate places. Keith D ( talk) 18:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask why the infobox has been changed as according to WP:CITIES I think we should be using the original one. Can someone please explain how Beverley's use of settlement in preference to UK place fits in with the following - "All settlements of the United Kingdom (that are not coterminous with a local government district) are to use the Template:Infobox UK place, though some very rare exceptions exist. For those that are coterminous with a local government district (which are usually large cities / unitary districts or equivalent—such as Liverpool, Leicester, and Bristol), please use Template:Infobox settlement." Keith D ( talk) 14:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The policy I am emphasizing is that of consensus Wikipedia:Consensus.You do not have consensus to use the infobox of your choice in this article. It's nothing to do with guidelines.-- Ahjet ( talk) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems like more work to use Infobox settlement rather than Infobox UK place as you don't get the maps with the location dot automatically generated and need to manually create a map for every single location. The Infobox UK place template does this all automatically if you provide the co-ordinates -- WOSlinker ( talk) 18:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have missed this message/reply, so I'll reprint it..
The fact that books on Beverley and the TOWN COUNCIL WEBSITE ITSELF (NOTE, NOT JUST DISTRICT FOR THE SLOW ONES) uses it means, it belongs in the article and is essential to it. No ifs, buts. The town council website uses a crest and so this article must too. You wanting to make the article look dull/boring or whatever doesn't come into consideration. Neither does farting on about some WikiProject which isn't even policy and clearly, as I have shown with Manchester, Kingston upon Hull, Sheffield, etc. Any article of a decent standard does not use the inadequet "UK Place" one, but infact "Infobox Settlement". I'm trying to remain civil, but the fact that you're being an anonyance, for the sake of being anoying hinders that greatly. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 09:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
|static_image= |static_image_caption= |static_image_2= |static_image_2_caption=
OK, thanks for the info and I apologise for the hostilities, but you could have told me that at the very start and avoided all of this pointless drama. I'll ask Stifle to unprotect this article if you like. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 18:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This page has been protected for 1 week due to edit warring. Please use this time to establish a consensus on the content of the page. If you agree on the page contents before the protection expires, you can request the page be unprotected at WP:RFPU. Stifle ( talk) 13:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
These diaries provide a fascinating insight into the social life of Beverley in the mid to late 18th century. Almost like Jane Austin. See [1] and [2].-- Harkey Lodger ( talk) 08:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to provide some content for the Beverley porject and also to reuest a link to a web site I manage that is 100% about Beverley. Running the risk of looking like a spammer but please my intentions are genuine - www.hu17.net ( Hu17dotnet ( talk) 19:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC))
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Beverley/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
.
|
Last edited at 21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Beverley. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Beverley. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi - I'm a resident of Beverley, idly browsing through. I noticed the section headed "Planned Expansion", and I feel it's a thinly-disguised insertion of campaigning rhetoric. A very long and hyperbolic quote from an obscure local campaigner, using lurid phrasing like "under attack" and "steamrollered".
I like my town and I don't want it to be spoilt by excessive or poorly-planned developments, but as a nation we have an urgent need to build more homes. This challenge isn't unique to Beverley, any more than climate change is. Not sure that it merits a section in the town's wikipedia article, but if there is to be a section then it should be more informative and balanced than the present text. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.32.239 ( talk) 18:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Beverley. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/developers-champing-bit-3-300-homes-built/story-24468134-detail/story.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://consult.eastriding.gov.uk/portal/forward_planning/core/substrategy?pointId=ID-2453187-POLICY-S5-DELIVERING-HOUSING-DEVELOPMENTWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The last sentence in this section was:
"St Martin's chapel was also destroyed and was a place of pilgrimage for many, was removed during the Dissolution of the Monasteries."
It's unclear what is being said, partly because of the grammar. There was no citation for it, and I've tried to find information on line, but with no success. Bibliosporias ( talk) 12:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Does this page need a collage like other articles and the anon who made this change failed to correct a caption of one photo mistaking for the minster and not adding the minster photo. DragonofBatley ( talk) 07:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
since when does beverley have a lion...
BEVERLEY ACTUALLY DOES HAVE A LION! THEY KEEP IT NEAR THE MEMORIAL HALL HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO BEVERLEY
I have reverted the recent change to the population in the infobox as the change was out of alignment with the text. Unfortunately I cannot locate a reference for either the 29,210 or 29,110 figure. Can anyone provide a reference for either of these figures? Keith D ( talk) 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
For this reason National Statistics prefers the urban area definition for comparative purposes - ie the contiguous built-up area where the gap between buildings does not exceed 50 metres. Otherwise most of the housing built in the past 30-plus years gets excluded because technically it is situated in adjacent parishes. Jameswilson ( talk) 23:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: - this has become a centralised discussion for changes on Market Weighton, Selby and Beverley - much easier to have a single place for discussion rather than separate places. Keith D ( talk) 18:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask why the infobox has been changed as according to WP:CITIES I think we should be using the original one. Can someone please explain how Beverley's use of settlement in preference to UK place fits in with the following - "All settlements of the United Kingdom (that are not coterminous with a local government district) are to use the Template:Infobox UK place, though some very rare exceptions exist. For those that are coterminous with a local government district (which are usually large cities / unitary districts or equivalent—such as Liverpool, Leicester, and Bristol), please use Template:Infobox settlement." Keith D ( talk) 14:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The policy I am emphasizing is that of consensus Wikipedia:Consensus.You do not have consensus to use the infobox of your choice in this article. It's nothing to do with guidelines.-- Ahjet ( talk) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems like more work to use Infobox settlement rather than Infobox UK place as you don't get the maps with the location dot automatically generated and need to manually create a map for every single location. The Infobox UK place template does this all automatically if you provide the co-ordinates -- WOSlinker ( talk) 18:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have missed this message/reply, so I'll reprint it..
The fact that books on Beverley and the TOWN COUNCIL WEBSITE ITSELF (NOTE, NOT JUST DISTRICT FOR THE SLOW ONES) uses it means, it belongs in the article and is essential to it. No ifs, buts. The town council website uses a crest and so this article must too. You wanting to make the article look dull/boring or whatever doesn't come into consideration. Neither does farting on about some WikiProject which isn't even policy and clearly, as I have shown with Manchester, Kingston upon Hull, Sheffield, etc. Any article of a decent standard does not use the inadequet "UK Place" one, but infact "Infobox Settlement". I'm trying to remain civil, but the fact that you're being an anonyance, for the sake of being anoying hinders that greatly. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 09:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
|static_image= |static_image_caption= |static_image_2= |static_image_2_caption=
OK, thanks for the info and I apologise for the hostilities, but you could have told me that at the very start and avoided all of this pointless drama. I'll ask Stifle to unprotect this article if you like. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 18:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This page has been protected for 1 week due to edit warring. Please use this time to establish a consensus on the content of the page. If you agree on the page contents before the protection expires, you can request the page be unprotected at WP:RFPU. Stifle ( talk) 13:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
These diaries provide a fascinating insight into the social life of Beverley in the mid to late 18th century. Almost like Jane Austin. See [1] and [2].-- Harkey Lodger ( talk) 08:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to provide some content for the Beverley porject and also to reuest a link to a web site I manage that is 100% about Beverley. Running the risk of looking like a spammer but please my intentions are genuine - www.hu17.net ( Hu17dotnet ( talk) 19:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC))
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Beverley/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
.
|
Last edited at 21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Beverley. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Beverley. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi - I'm a resident of Beverley, idly browsing through. I noticed the section headed "Planned Expansion", and I feel it's a thinly-disguised insertion of campaigning rhetoric. A very long and hyperbolic quote from an obscure local campaigner, using lurid phrasing like "under attack" and "steamrollered".
I like my town and I don't want it to be spoilt by excessive or poorly-planned developments, but as a nation we have an urgent need to build more homes. This challenge isn't unique to Beverley, any more than climate change is. Not sure that it merits a section in the town's wikipedia article, but if there is to be a section then it should be more informative and balanced than the present text. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.32.239 ( talk) 18:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Beverley. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/developers-champing-bit-3-300-homes-built/story-24468134-detail/story.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://consult.eastriding.gov.uk/portal/forward_planning/core/substrategy?pointId=ID-2453187-POLICY-S5-DELIVERING-HOUSING-DEVELOPMENTWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The last sentence in this section was:
"St Martin's chapel was also destroyed and was a place of pilgrimage for many, was removed during the Dissolution of the Monasteries."
It's unclear what is being said, partly because of the grammar. There was no citation for it, and I've tried to find information on line, but with no success. Bibliosporias ( talk) 12:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Does this page need a collage like other articles and the anon who made this change failed to correct a caption of one photo mistaking for the minster and not adding the minster photo. DragonofBatley ( talk) 07:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)