This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
First things first, I'm wanting to add a link to a new Ingleby Barwick community forum. I’m in no way affiliated with any other Ingleby Barwick website.
I'm aware that if i posted a link, you would most likely remove is straight away. So, please hear me out! I recently moved in to Ingleby Barwick, and would like to contribute to the community. Being in IT, my initial thoughts were "I'll start a forum". I have ran many successful and active forum communities in the past, and know how much hard work is needed to get things of the ground. I feel that existing websites (no names) have lost their focus, and are now centred more on making profit from advertisers than actually benefiting anyone!
I have just completed the design of the site, and am now in the process of getting flyers and posters printed for distribution around the estate (note my carefull choice of word, its still an estate isn't it!). Just one of the many methods that i will be using to help make the site in to a valuable community resource. It will be a hard slog, but I’m hoping with the right moves, it will be successful.
To check out the site design you can visit it here.
Andrew, "forums should generally not be linked to" - I think the key work here is generally. There is no rule that states you can't link to forum communities. To shoot down something that could be beneficial for all isn't helpful, and to me defeats the point of a site such as wikipedia!
The first hurdle in getting things off the ground is getting targeted traffic. A link from this site would do such a thing.
You can get in touch with me at "mailme(at)matthewpark.co.uk"
-- Mattpark 22:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No comments as yet. I'll wait a bit longer before i go putting up the link as im no no rush at the moment.
-- Mattpark 11:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Your link will be reverted. See WP:EL Andrew Duffell 12:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Andrew, Please elaborate on that a little. For what reason would the link be "reverted"? I see a one or two reasons from those guidelines which state that my particluar link wouldn't be adivsed, but i see more that would see me link as a valuable one. To hinder such a site is rather pointless. People who visit this wiki page can in turn visit the forum... and hopefully valuable information can be gathered there off visitors who don't understand wiki. I see no major reason why this wouldn't benefit all involved. -- Mattpark 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It clearly says not to make links to your own site, or to forums (unless they meet critera that you don't meet). Andrew Duffell 23:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I really think linking to these "community forums" is completly unnecessary as we are already linking to their parent site "InglebyBarwick.com" which has explicit links to the forums. The only reason they "claim" the forums are seperate is because they got in to trouble over some of the things that were posted on the forum when it was hosted with the site. Also they are not very active forums at that, so I see no need for a direct link from this article.- Andrewduffell 07:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Further to this I reference the wikipedia guidelines on external links. Quote: "10. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to." - Andrewduffell 19:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I've already reverted the addition of a pronunciation description once and its been readded. I noticed Andrewduffell also reverted the change at the Thornaby on Tees article. I've not seen this type of pronunciation description in any other articles. I feel this change should be reverted. Any objections please discuss, I don't want to get into a revert/edit war over this. Super Ted 15:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I have never heard Ingleby Barwick pronounced as it says in this article. I have only ever heard people say it as in "bar-wick" and not "barrick". Although I do not live in the estate myself, I live elsewhere in Teesside, so maybe someone who lives there knows better. --Screeming Monkey 19:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The pronunciation is Barrick as correctly pointed out above. It is centuries old and matters as it it's name.
A search on http://www.multimap.com states that Ingleby Barwick is in Stockton-On-Tees. This is what I have always believed to be the case, for postal and other uses. Any objections to me removing the reference to Thornaby? Super Ted 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Any further objections before I make the change to outskirts? Andrew, if you still have a problem with this following my explanation above, let me know. Super Ted 16:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[3] The site now lists classes Ingleby Barwick as a town in its own right. As this is the council's official website I see no reason to doubt the veracity of this claim. Any objctions please discuss. Super Ted 11:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The council has passed no motions to change the status of IB. Please do not change this without referencing official council minutes. This is clearly an error on the website which I will be contacting them about. User:Andrewduffell
Please see WP:Verifiability, in particular:
"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
Under these guidelines I am afraid you were incorrect to revert my edit and I have re-reverted it accordingly. If it turns out that the council have made an error I have no objections to you altering the main page. However, I do not believe they have and as it stands IB is currently classed as a town in its own right according to the council. Also, The Borough of Stockton-on-Tees (Electoral Changes) Order 2003 [4] clearly categorises IB as a seperate parish to Thornaby. Hope this clears things up. Super Ted 16:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
See this article on the coucil website.
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:i6UPt9b5YhQJ:www.stockton.gov.uk/resources/environment/planning/openspace/thorningarea.pdf+"ingleby+barwick+estate"+site:stockton.gov.uk&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1 (Google cache with highlighting). IB is quoted as an estate. This is more reliable as a source because it is an offical document, not just a general promotional page which I doubt can be classed as a reliable source.The fact that IB is a seperate parish is irrelevent. Most large towns have multiple parishes (e.g Stockton and Middlesbrough.). Thornaby is no different.I have not reverted your edit, but unless you come up with something more firm than an error on the council website I will be reverting your edit.As I have said previously. There is an offical legal process that has to take place to change it from an estate to a town in its own right. This has not taken place. Unless you can reference this non-existant documentation of the legal process (which would be available if it has taken place) there is no way that IB is a town because issues discussed previously that show it is an estate in Thornaby still stands.
Andrew Duffell
22:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I got an email from the council:
Subject: RE: Error on stockton.gov.uk Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:18:58 +0100 From: "Asquith, Judi" <Judi.Asquith@...> To: "Andrew Duffell" <andrew@...> Thanks for that, I'll change the wording
It hasn't changed yet, but I expect it will. Andrew Duffell 15:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Andrew, you are correct, this has dragged on for far too long now. However, the evidence that IB is now an independent housing estate is overwhelming to say the least. Your only evidence thus far that this is not the case is an old map [7] that was produced before IB came into existance. You will note that this is described as a "Boundary Map" on the site concerned.
You will note that these boundaries were changed pursuant to "The Borough of Stockton-on-Tees (Electoral Changes) Order 2003". [8] I suggest you pay particular arrention to section 3.1 - 3. - (1) The existing wards of the borough[7] shall be abolished.
If IB were part of Thornaby as you continue to assert then IB would fall under Wards of the parish of Thornaby, however it does not, it in fact falls under Wards of the parish of Ingleby Barwick.
I note from your replies above that you are under the incorrect impression that a housing state must be within a town. This is not the case. This is shown in the
Leigh Park article. I am sure you will appreciate that IB is fairly unique in terms of its size and also in that it is not in direct contact with any town in the vicinity.
Again, in case you need to re-refer to it, there is a graphical representation of IB and Thornaby here: [9]
There is also anecdotal evidence indicating that IB is not part of Thornaby. The new sign at the entrance to the estate (coming from Leven Bank) says "Welcome to Ingleby Barwick - Stockton". It makes no reference to Thornaby. You will also note that the study that you quoted previously [10] clearly refers to Thornaby and Ingleby Barwick - (my emphasis) i.e. 2 seperate entities.
I appreciate that IB is not a town, and am grateful to you for clarifying that for me. However, I hope you now realise this does not mean that IB can not be an independant housing estate.
For further clarification see Town, you will note that Any parish council can decide to describe itself as a Town Council. Not all settlements which are commonly described as towns have a 'Town Council' however. I am not saying IB is a town, however having its own Parish Council as described above does mean it is an independent entity. The status of this entity is a housing estate, not a town, as the parish council have passed no such motion as you correctly described above. I am being careful not to confuse IB's independence (i.e. not part of Thornaby) and the description of it (i.e. estate, town etc.) I hope I have achieved this.
I hope you now see why IB is independent. I am grateful to you for the work you do on a large number of articles concerning areas in the north. By and large you do a fine job of ensuring inaccurate information does not get into the articles. However, in this case you are incorrect in your assertions. If, despite my explanation, you still wish to refute that IB is no longer part of Thornaby, please feel free to do so. We will then have to see where we go from here. I will revert the article to my edit in the near future if I don't hear anything to the contrary. Thanks for all your help. Super Ted 12:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
There has been a reopening of the long debate on Town or Housing estate! And an edit, I am not sure this will go down well! Looking on wikipedia I found this article List of towns in England. Does everyone agree we can now call IB a town with a wiki link to this page? James ( talk) 10:08, 30 October 2011
Hi thought you could read this quote "In England and Wales, a town traditionally was a settlement which had a charter to hold a market or fair and therefore became a "market town". Market towns were distinguished from villages in that they were the economic hub of a surrounding area, and were usually larger and had more facilities.
In modern usage the term town is used either for old market towns, or for settlements which have a town council, or for settlements which elsewhere would be classed a city, but which do not have the legal right to call themselves such. Any parish council can decide to describe itself as a town council, but this will usually only apply to the smallest "towns" (because larger towns will be larger than a single civil parish).
Not all settlements which are commonly described as towns have a "Town Council" or "Borough Council". In fact, because of many successive changes to the structure of local government, there are now few large towns which are represented by a body closely related to their historic borough council. These days, a smaller town will usually be part of a local authority which covers several towns. And where a larger town is the seat of a local authority, the authority will usually cover a much wider area than the town itself (either a large rural hinterland, or several other, smaller towns).
Additionally, there are "new towns" which were created during the 20th century, such as Basildon, Redditch and Telford. Milton Keynes was designed to be a "new city" but legally it is still a town despite its size.
Some settlements which describe themselves as towns (e.g. Shipston-on-Stour, Warwickshire) are smaller than some large villages (e.g. Kidlington, Oxfordshire).
The status of a city is reserved for places that have Letters Patent entitling them to the name, historically associated with the possession of a cathedral. Some large municipalities (such as Northampton and Bournemouth) are legally boroughs but not cities, whereas some cities are quite small — such as Ely or St David's for instance."
Perhaps you are being too strict on the modern concept of a town. JNevison ( talk) 10:47, 30 October 2011
Well done for trying to find eveidence that Ingleby Barwick is purely a large estate. The mouseprice reference, number 3, refers to the Postcode area TS17 which is Thornaby and Barwick. This is different from the Geographical area of Ingleby Barwick although there is talk of giving Ingleby Barwick it's own Postcode in the next year or so. It is well recognised that Postal areas do not always reflect geographical areas in the sense of local settlements. I think this reference should be removed. I also think that a local estate agent is not necessarily a good reference as evidence of IB's status. I think the 1986 Doomsday project is quite good evidence but alas is now 24 years old and may well be out of date. I have found numerous sites where IB is referred to as a Town including articles in local and national papers and also the website of our local member of parliament. Also there are references to IB as a large residential estate likewise they appear in local or national media in the main. The last officially recorded document I can find for Ingleby Barwick is as a Township in the Parish of Stainton. Granted this was in the 1800's. Perhaps then Ingleby Barwick could be a hamlet, a village, town (although not a city). I can not find any current legal definition of a town only the older, no longer used, definitions you have mentioned previously. Unfortunately these cannot be applied to new settlements as they no longer have any legal status. Modern geographical definitions of settlements merely refer to a town as a settlement larger than a village and smaller than a city. Social geographers have coined the term dormitory town a place from which many people travel in order to work in a bigger town or city. This could also easily be applied to IB. JNevison ( talk) 17:48, 30 October 2011
"Borough Council... town...Eaglescliffe ....as towns " Eaglesciffe chapter & verse please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckstones ( talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The article needs splitting into sections under seperate subtitles. Andrewduffell 11:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've just deleted a large amount of the problems section so to improve compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. I would appreciate it if someone could readd the information in a more verifiable manner. I spend a long while thinking before removing the information, and felt it best not to leave it in place for the time being as it was damaging to the overall reliability of the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Super Ted ( talk • contribs) .
I have been having another look at the article and I feel the final section on problems should be removed. I feel this for a number of reasons. The first is that the problems identified are not unique to Ingleby Barwick and also are no more serious in Ingleby Barwick than the UK as a whole as a result a brief mention perhaps to a Wiki page on modern youth problems would be more more appropriate. The second reason is that it means there is repetition within the article, youth problems around Romano park are listed both in the problems section and in the section around local amenities. The third reason is that it does not confirm to the recommended layout of a article on settlements promoted by the wikiYorkshire project. I would appreciate your thoughts on this. If there are no objections I will try and add the information to the pertinent sections higher in the article with appropriate links. J Nevison 12:12, 23 Oct 2011
I agree the final section is well referenced it is just the problems are no more severe, perhaps less severe if the police crimes map is to be believed, compared to other areas local or national. I am looking to improve the status of the article as a whole, I thought the layout was quite good and similar to other articles about towns. Which areas did you feel needed rehashing or referencing? J Nevison 14:28, 26 October 2011
This is the text taken from the BBC Domesday Project:
Ingleby Barwick is a new private residential estate built on the southern perimeter of the old Thornaby airfield.It was officially opened in 1981 by the mayor of Langbaurgh,a borough of Cleveland County.The estate caters for the demand in the home market from the small terrace to the large detatched.Three main contractors are involved,each offering their own individuality.The main criticisms from the new residents concern amenities, access and communications.There are no shops,pubs,school or leisure centre although the estate is now 5 years old and reasonably established.Poor bus service,inadeqate[sic] road surfaces and a feeling of isolation all combine to give the majority of residents a sense of neglect.This would appear to be a common problem_the failure to supply the basic requirements of a community.
- Andrew Duffell 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
None of the problems section should be in as they arew no more or less problems in IB than any other avarage place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.6.47 ( talk) 19:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
What criteria apply to external links. Those I'd added for schools are shown but those for churches which I'd just added have been removed? Link for BO2SS was removed but one for moneymaking health club remains .
Consistency ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckstones ( talk • contribs) 13:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ingleby Barwick/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 12:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ingleby Barwick. 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) 23:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Ingleby Barwick. 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) 16:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Ingleby Barwick layout in 2014, since then housing has been built on the eastern half of the land from Basselton Beck to low lane but it might be counted as Maltby
please can somebody crop it
(I found it when looking for photos it is English but was on polish Wiki - since international wiki-articles are newer they find newer images quicker when set-up) Chocolateediter ( talk) 10:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I can't get my head around IB being a "royal charter town", as per recent edits. It's a very large housing estate. I can't find any references for the assertion about royal charter towns, nor even anything to describe what they are (excpetions maybe for the likes of Royal Wootton Bassett). Can anyone shed light on this? Arcturus ( talk) 00:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Arcturus:
Sorry about the royal charter bit I don’t think the town has one, I was using a little self-made template to give local towns a standard introductory paragraph and missed that this one had an unknown royal charter status. It has long been a town, however.
A royal charter isn’t that much of a big deal, meaning a place with a long established market or a town with (or had) a borough.
Before its housing boom, going back, it was a town compared to the earlier standards. It did start looking like a village when other places expanded but the housing boom definitely reconfirmed it as modern standard of a town’s size. The modern history section does elaborate on the matter and is referenced.
Until recently it was definitely seen as a housing estate (even by most townsfolk due to its lack of amenities) but has a local town council, at least definitely in the last 2 or 3 decades. It doesn’t have as much of a notable history like its two neighbours, Yarm being a known settlement built around an important river crossing and Thornaby have its own borough. At the very least it was important (well the Barwick bit was) enough to be on that historical map. Chocolateediter ( talk) 11:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
To add to that, the settlement has recently gained a secondary school, Leisure Centre, second community building, two-ish more “villages”, and more shops, restaurants and takeaways. The town is geography isolated by water so would not merge easily with its neighbours. The rules of town-ships have weakened because of many simular cases. This has to constitute being called a town, housing estate is a laughable term to describe IB as it is basically a now only slightly-disjointed town centre (and has always been) due to it once being two or more separate places merged by filling in gaps. Look at most modern settlements and you will find absorbed farmsteads that have way to many houses around them. In fact The Rings (a successor to Barwick and Quarry farms which are basically now apart of it), Beckfields and Lowfields (er not that otherwise notable so could be a stub), these bits of IB have facilities separate to the Myton central should get there own articles to reduce this article down like Yarm has done, it seems more fitting. Chocolateediter ( talk) 12:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I know it is at least we have good old town to describe IB, to be honest Thornaby is a market town but is in the same position that it has lost its old quarter, on the other hand, Yarm is definitely traditional. I am going to start to edge out the said villages by first making infoboxes, should “IB” be on the intro? Chocolateediter ( talk) 15:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I meant the three villages of The Rings, Lowfields and Beckfields. Myton can become a proper section but should always be in IB article for obvious reasons.
For the long run yea Leisure Centre information should do, Activ8 operation should be on there. If Activ8 doesn’t have an article Splash(Stockton) and other Activ8 Centres should be mentioned.
An IB Leisure Centre, Bannatyne’s( a good addition to the companies own article since it was its first) and a picture of each set of shops pictures would be nice but I’ll have to wait for them. They is a nice map of IB with an annoying big white border but I’ll add it anyways. Chocolateediter ( talk) 15:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
all done with my mass reorganisation, what do you think. Chocolateediter ( talk) 12:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Yea each should but for now the main ones until each has enough to put down. Schools could be broke up. I honestly have no clue as to what to call the development around Ingleby Manor school since they is no sign, for history they is a good reference I added that shows old maps in the area.
Lowfields is the next contender.
Just needs the top two points elaborated upon.
What do you think Ingleby Manor development will be called:
@ Arcturus: [1]<that is a good reference which also has good references.
Would you like to create a bit of the history section, a village section or two. Chocolateediter ( talk) 20:13, 8 November 2020-edited 10:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ingleby Barwick's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "gias":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
This section [1] was removed from the article. Personally I don't feel it should be removed, but understand it is a contentious section. Especially with those who live there are don't want issues in the area highlighted. I do feel it is a well referenced section - perhaps more so than the rest of the article. Perhaps the content from that section could be better incorporated into the other sections of the article such as the Demographics section, or for the case of the Councillor assault in the the Governance section? What are people's thoughts? MapEdit ( talk) 13:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I removed the section without consent. It’s a matter of reference quality, not the amount of references or how well formatted the references are. One reference is from a gossip magazine and others concern reports mainly dating back a decade and a half ago, when it wasn’t even classified as a town yet. In comparison to Thornaby these type of reports are rare, if the section was formatted the same on the Thornaby article it would be quite long. Even then large parts of Thornaby are low crime with some parts having high crime rates. Why have a section about low crime then pick out each time it was reported. The more recent road upgrades can be a sentence in the transport section not a whole paragraph. Ingleby doesn’t have the best record for media reporting about the town. It is relatively isolated without a dedicated rail station, two bus services and no main high street. It is more like a group of villages with a lot of houses, at the moment since it has started to become more town-like so it might start to be reported on more often and hopefully more pictures since it is a struggle to find ones showing the place rather than fields. Chocolateediter ( talk) 12:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved Road references, info was there already so it there now just to back it up. I think Gossip Magazine [2] still exists, a pdf link would be handy, 2006 copy would be hard to track down on the internet. The information on the rest just isn’t that encyclopaedic, most of it is written like headlines. We must remember Teesside Live is owned by the same company as the frowned upon newspaper on Wikipedia, Daily Mail, so a lot of information sourced by it should be a last resort. In Ingleby’s case Teesside Live has to be used in cases to fill in gaps, D&S Times and Northern Echo are somewhat helpful to swap out for if they had also reported on it. I’ll look into a reference clean-up on the article, might not be able to find much. Just as a heads up date format is usually “# full-month year” (at-least on British articles, US full-month # year) ####-##-## short form is unhelpful for US users to understand, a lot of Wikipedians are friendly but pedantic. On my talk page you could message me if you want to learn tips. (PS I’m am on BST/UTC+1 just a bit of a night owl) Chocolateediter ( talk) 02:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
References
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
First things first, I'm wanting to add a link to a new Ingleby Barwick community forum. I’m in no way affiliated with any other Ingleby Barwick website.
I'm aware that if i posted a link, you would most likely remove is straight away. So, please hear me out! I recently moved in to Ingleby Barwick, and would like to contribute to the community. Being in IT, my initial thoughts were "I'll start a forum". I have ran many successful and active forum communities in the past, and know how much hard work is needed to get things of the ground. I feel that existing websites (no names) have lost their focus, and are now centred more on making profit from advertisers than actually benefiting anyone!
I have just completed the design of the site, and am now in the process of getting flyers and posters printed for distribution around the estate (note my carefull choice of word, its still an estate isn't it!). Just one of the many methods that i will be using to help make the site in to a valuable community resource. It will be a hard slog, but I’m hoping with the right moves, it will be successful.
To check out the site design you can visit it here.
Andrew, "forums should generally not be linked to" - I think the key work here is generally. There is no rule that states you can't link to forum communities. To shoot down something that could be beneficial for all isn't helpful, and to me defeats the point of a site such as wikipedia!
The first hurdle in getting things off the ground is getting targeted traffic. A link from this site would do such a thing.
You can get in touch with me at "mailme(at)matthewpark.co.uk"
-- Mattpark 22:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No comments as yet. I'll wait a bit longer before i go putting up the link as im no no rush at the moment.
-- Mattpark 11:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Your link will be reverted. See WP:EL Andrew Duffell 12:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Andrew, Please elaborate on that a little. For what reason would the link be "reverted"? I see a one or two reasons from those guidelines which state that my particluar link wouldn't be adivsed, but i see more that would see me link as a valuable one. To hinder such a site is rather pointless. People who visit this wiki page can in turn visit the forum... and hopefully valuable information can be gathered there off visitors who don't understand wiki. I see no major reason why this wouldn't benefit all involved. -- Mattpark 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It clearly says not to make links to your own site, or to forums (unless they meet critera that you don't meet). Andrew Duffell 23:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I really think linking to these "community forums" is completly unnecessary as we are already linking to their parent site "InglebyBarwick.com" which has explicit links to the forums. The only reason they "claim" the forums are seperate is because they got in to trouble over some of the things that were posted on the forum when it was hosted with the site. Also they are not very active forums at that, so I see no need for a direct link from this article.- Andrewduffell 07:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Further to this I reference the wikipedia guidelines on external links. Quote: "10. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to." - Andrewduffell 19:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I've already reverted the addition of a pronunciation description once and its been readded. I noticed Andrewduffell also reverted the change at the Thornaby on Tees article. I've not seen this type of pronunciation description in any other articles. I feel this change should be reverted. Any objections please discuss, I don't want to get into a revert/edit war over this. Super Ted 15:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I have never heard Ingleby Barwick pronounced as it says in this article. I have only ever heard people say it as in "bar-wick" and not "barrick". Although I do not live in the estate myself, I live elsewhere in Teesside, so maybe someone who lives there knows better. --Screeming Monkey 19:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The pronunciation is Barrick as correctly pointed out above. It is centuries old and matters as it it's name.
A search on http://www.multimap.com states that Ingleby Barwick is in Stockton-On-Tees. This is what I have always believed to be the case, for postal and other uses. Any objections to me removing the reference to Thornaby? Super Ted 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Any further objections before I make the change to outskirts? Andrew, if you still have a problem with this following my explanation above, let me know. Super Ted 16:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[3] The site now lists classes Ingleby Barwick as a town in its own right. As this is the council's official website I see no reason to doubt the veracity of this claim. Any objctions please discuss. Super Ted 11:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The council has passed no motions to change the status of IB. Please do not change this without referencing official council minutes. This is clearly an error on the website which I will be contacting them about. User:Andrewduffell
Please see WP:Verifiability, in particular:
"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
Under these guidelines I am afraid you were incorrect to revert my edit and I have re-reverted it accordingly. If it turns out that the council have made an error I have no objections to you altering the main page. However, I do not believe they have and as it stands IB is currently classed as a town in its own right according to the council. Also, The Borough of Stockton-on-Tees (Electoral Changes) Order 2003 [4] clearly categorises IB as a seperate parish to Thornaby. Hope this clears things up. Super Ted 16:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
See this article on the coucil website.
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:i6UPt9b5YhQJ:www.stockton.gov.uk/resources/environment/planning/openspace/thorningarea.pdf+"ingleby+barwick+estate"+site:stockton.gov.uk&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1 (Google cache with highlighting). IB is quoted as an estate. This is more reliable as a source because it is an offical document, not just a general promotional page which I doubt can be classed as a reliable source.The fact that IB is a seperate parish is irrelevent. Most large towns have multiple parishes (e.g Stockton and Middlesbrough.). Thornaby is no different.I have not reverted your edit, but unless you come up with something more firm than an error on the council website I will be reverting your edit.As I have said previously. There is an offical legal process that has to take place to change it from an estate to a town in its own right. This has not taken place. Unless you can reference this non-existant documentation of the legal process (which would be available if it has taken place) there is no way that IB is a town because issues discussed previously that show it is an estate in Thornaby still stands.
Andrew Duffell
22:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I got an email from the council:
Subject: RE: Error on stockton.gov.uk Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:18:58 +0100 From: "Asquith, Judi" <Judi.Asquith@...> To: "Andrew Duffell" <andrew@...> Thanks for that, I'll change the wording
It hasn't changed yet, but I expect it will. Andrew Duffell 15:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Andrew, you are correct, this has dragged on for far too long now. However, the evidence that IB is now an independent housing estate is overwhelming to say the least. Your only evidence thus far that this is not the case is an old map [7] that was produced before IB came into existance. You will note that this is described as a "Boundary Map" on the site concerned.
You will note that these boundaries were changed pursuant to "The Borough of Stockton-on-Tees (Electoral Changes) Order 2003". [8] I suggest you pay particular arrention to section 3.1 - 3. - (1) The existing wards of the borough[7] shall be abolished.
If IB were part of Thornaby as you continue to assert then IB would fall under Wards of the parish of Thornaby, however it does not, it in fact falls under Wards of the parish of Ingleby Barwick.
I note from your replies above that you are under the incorrect impression that a housing state must be within a town. This is not the case. This is shown in the
Leigh Park article. I am sure you will appreciate that IB is fairly unique in terms of its size and also in that it is not in direct contact with any town in the vicinity.
Again, in case you need to re-refer to it, there is a graphical representation of IB and Thornaby here: [9]
There is also anecdotal evidence indicating that IB is not part of Thornaby. The new sign at the entrance to the estate (coming from Leven Bank) says "Welcome to Ingleby Barwick - Stockton". It makes no reference to Thornaby. You will also note that the study that you quoted previously [10] clearly refers to Thornaby and Ingleby Barwick - (my emphasis) i.e. 2 seperate entities.
I appreciate that IB is not a town, and am grateful to you for clarifying that for me. However, I hope you now realise this does not mean that IB can not be an independant housing estate.
For further clarification see Town, you will note that Any parish council can decide to describe itself as a Town Council. Not all settlements which are commonly described as towns have a 'Town Council' however. I am not saying IB is a town, however having its own Parish Council as described above does mean it is an independent entity. The status of this entity is a housing estate, not a town, as the parish council have passed no such motion as you correctly described above. I am being careful not to confuse IB's independence (i.e. not part of Thornaby) and the description of it (i.e. estate, town etc.) I hope I have achieved this.
I hope you now see why IB is independent. I am grateful to you for the work you do on a large number of articles concerning areas in the north. By and large you do a fine job of ensuring inaccurate information does not get into the articles. However, in this case you are incorrect in your assertions. If, despite my explanation, you still wish to refute that IB is no longer part of Thornaby, please feel free to do so. We will then have to see where we go from here. I will revert the article to my edit in the near future if I don't hear anything to the contrary. Thanks for all your help. Super Ted 12:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
There has been a reopening of the long debate on Town or Housing estate! And an edit, I am not sure this will go down well! Looking on wikipedia I found this article List of towns in England. Does everyone agree we can now call IB a town with a wiki link to this page? James ( talk) 10:08, 30 October 2011
Hi thought you could read this quote "In England and Wales, a town traditionally was a settlement which had a charter to hold a market or fair and therefore became a "market town". Market towns were distinguished from villages in that they were the economic hub of a surrounding area, and were usually larger and had more facilities.
In modern usage the term town is used either for old market towns, or for settlements which have a town council, or for settlements which elsewhere would be classed a city, but which do not have the legal right to call themselves such. Any parish council can decide to describe itself as a town council, but this will usually only apply to the smallest "towns" (because larger towns will be larger than a single civil parish).
Not all settlements which are commonly described as towns have a "Town Council" or "Borough Council". In fact, because of many successive changes to the structure of local government, there are now few large towns which are represented by a body closely related to their historic borough council. These days, a smaller town will usually be part of a local authority which covers several towns. And where a larger town is the seat of a local authority, the authority will usually cover a much wider area than the town itself (either a large rural hinterland, or several other, smaller towns).
Additionally, there are "new towns" which were created during the 20th century, such as Basildon, Redditch and Telford. Milton Keynes was designed to be a "new city" but legally it is still a town despite its size.
Some settlements which describe themselves as towns (e.g. Shipston-on-Stour, Warwickshire) are smaller than some large villages (e.g. Kidlington, Oxfordshire).
The status of a city is reserved for places that have Letters Patent entitling them to the name, historically associated with the possession of a cathedral. Some large municipalities (such as Northampton and Bournemouth) are legally boroughs but not cities, whereas some cities are quite small — such as Ely or St David's for instance."
Perhaps you are being too strict on the modern concept of a town. JNevison ( talk) 10:47, 30 October 2011
Well done for trying to find eveidence that Ingleby Barwick is purely a large estate. The mouseprice reference, number 3, refers to the Postcode area TS17 which is Thornaby and Barwick. This is different from the Geographical area of Ingleby Barwick although there is talk of giving Ingleby Barwick it's own Postcode in the next year or so. It is well recognised that Postal areas do not always reflect geographical areas in the sense of local settlements. I think this reference should be removed. I also think that a local estate agent is not necessarily a good reference as evidence of IB's status. I think the 1986 Doomsday project is quite good evidence but alas is now 24 years old and may well be out of date. I have found numerous sites where IB is referred to as a Town including articles in local and national papers and also the website of our local member of parliament. Also there are references to IB as a large residential estate likewise they appear in local or national media in the main. The last officially recorded document I can find for Ingleby Barwick is as a Township in the Parish of Stainton. Granted this was in the 1800's. Perhaps then Ingleby Barwick could be a hamlet, a village, town (although not a city). I can not find any current legal definition of a town only the older, no longer used, definitions you have mentioned previously. Unfortunately these cannot be applied to new settlements as they no longer have any legal status. Modern geographical definitions of settlements merely refer to a town as a settlement larger than a village and smaller than a city. Social geographers have coined the term dormitory town a place from which many people travel in order to work in a bigger town or city. This could also easily be applied to IB. JNevison ( talk) 17:48, 30 October 2011
"Borough Council... town...Eaglescliffe ....as towns " Eaglesciffe chapter & verse please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckstones ( talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The article needs splitting into sections under seperate subtitles. Andrewduffell 11:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've just deleted a large amount of the problems section so to improve compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. I would appreciate it if someone could readd the information in a more verifiable manner. I spend a long while thinking before removing the information, and felt it best not to leave it in place for the time being as it was damaging to the overall reliability of the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Super Ted ( talk • contribs) .
I have been having another look at the article and I feel the final section on problems should be removed. I feel this for a number of reasons. The first is that the problems identified are not unique to Ingleby Barwick and also are no more serious in Ingleby Barwick than the UK as a whole as a result a brief mention perhaps to a Wiki page on modern youth problems would be more more appropriate. The second reason is that it means there is repetition within the article, youth problems around Romano park are listed both in the problems section and in the section around local amenities. The third reason is that it does not confirm to the recommended layout of a article on settlements promoted by the wikiYorkshire project. I would appreciate your thoughts on this. If there are no objections I will try and add the information to the pertinent sections higher in the article with appropriate links. J Nevison 12:12, 23 Oct 2011
I agree the final section is well referenced it is just the problems are no more severe, perhaps less severe if the police crimes map is to be believed, compared to other areas local or national. I am looking to improve the status of the article as a whole, I thought the layout was quite good and similar to other articles about towns. Which areas did you feel needed rehashing or referencing? J Nevison 14:28, 26 October 2011
This is the text taken from the BBC Domesday Project:
Ingleby Barwick is a new private residential estate built on the southern perimeter of the old Thornaby airfield.It was officially opened in 1981 by the mayor of Langbaurgh,a borough of Cleveland County.The estate caters for the demand in the home market from the small terrace to the large detatched.Three main contractors are involved,each offering their own individuality.The main criticisms from the new residents concern amenities, access and communications.There are no shops,pubs,school or leisure centre although the estate is now 5 years old and reasonably established.Poor bus service,inadeqate[sic] road surfaces and a feeling of isolation all combine to give the majority of residents a sense of neglect.This would appear to be a common problem_the failure to supply the basic requirements of a community.
- Andrew Duffell 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
None of the problems section should be in as they arew no more or less problems in IB than any other avarage place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.6.47 ( talk) 19:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
What criteria apply to external links. Those I'd added for schools are shown but those for churches which I'd just added have been removed? Link for BO2SS was removed but one for moneymaking health club remains .
Consistency ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckstones ( talk • contribs) 13:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ingleby Barwick/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 12:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ingleby Barwick. 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) 23:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Ingleby Barwick. 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) 16:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Ingleby Barwick layout in 2014, since then housing has been built on the eastern half of the land from Basselton Beck to low lane but it might be counted as Maltby
please can somebody crop it
(I found it when looking for photos it is English but was on polish Wiki - since international wiki-articles are newer they find newer images quicker when set-up) Chocolateediter ( talk) 10:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I can't get my head around IB being a "royal charter town", as per recent edits. It's a very large housing estate. I can't find any references for the assertion about royal charter towns, nor even anything to describe what they are (excpetions maybe for the likes of Royal Wootton Bassett). Can anyone shed light on this? Arcturus ( talk) 00:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Arcturus:
Sorry about the royal charter bit I don’t think the town has one, I was using a little self-made template to give local towns a standard introductory paragraph and missed that this one had an unknown royal charter status. It has long been a town, however.
A royal charter isn’t that much of a big deal, meaning a place with a long established market or a town with (or had) a borough.
Before its housing boom, going back, it was a town compared to the earlier standards. It did start looking like a village when other places expanded but the housing boom definitely reconfirmed it as modern standard of a town’s size. The modern history section does elaborate on the matter and is referenced.
Until recently it was definitely seen as a housing estate (even by most townsfolk due to its lack of amenities) but has a local town council, at least definitely in the last 2 or 3 decades. It doesn’t have as much of a notable history like its two neighbours, Yarm being a known settlement built around an important river crossing and Thornaby have its own borough. At the very least it was important (well the Barwick bit was) enough to be on that historical map. Chocolateediter ( talk) 11:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
To add to that, the settlement has recently gained a secondary school, Leisure Centre, second community building, two-ish more “villages”, and more shops, restaurants and takeaways. The town is geography isolated by water so would not merge easily with its neighbours. The rules of town-ships have weakened because of many simular cases. This has to constitute being called a town, housing estate is a laughable term to describe IB as it is basically a now only slightly-disjointed town centre (and has always been) due to it once being two or more separate places merged by filling in gaps. Look at most modern settlements and you will find absorbed farmsteads that have way to many houses around them. In fact The Rings (a successor to Barwick and Quarry farms which are basically now apart of it), Beckfields and Lowfields (er not that otherwise notable so could be a stub), these bits of IB have facilities separate to the Myton central should get there own articles to reduce this article down like Yarm has done, it seems more fitting. Chocolateediter ( talk) 12:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I know it is at least we have good old town to describe IB, to be honest Thornaby is a market town but is in the same position that it has lost its old quarter, on the other hand, Yarm is definitely traditional. I am going to start to edge out the said villages by first making infoboxes, should “IB” be on the intro? Chocolateediter ( talk) 15:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I meant the three villages of The Rings, Lowfields and Beckfields. Myton can become a proper section but should always be in IB article for obvious reasons.
For the long run yea Leisure Centre information should do, Activ8 operation should be on there. If Activ8 doesn’t have an article Splash(Stockton) and other Activ8 Centres should be mentioned.
An IB Leisure Centre, Bannatyne’s( a good addition to the companies own article since it was its first) and a picture of each set of shops pictures would be nice but I’ll have to wait for them. They is a nice map of IB with an annoying big white border but I’ll add it anyways. Chocolateediter ( talk) 15:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
all done with my mass reorganisation, what do you think. Chocolateediter ( talk) 12:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Yea each should but for now the main ones until each has enough to put down. Schools could be broke up. I honestly have no clue as to what to call the development around Ingleby Manor school since they is no sign, for history they is a good reference I added that shows old maps in the area.
Lowfields is the next contender.
Just needs the top two points elaborated upon.
What do you think Ingleby Manor development will be called:
@ Arcturus: [1]<that is a good reference which also has good references.
Would you like to create a bit of the history section, a village section or two. Chocolateediter ( talk) 20:13, 8 November 2020-edited 10:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ingleby Barwick's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "gias":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
This section [1] was removed from the article. Personally I don't feel it should be removed, but understand it is a contentious section. Especially with those who live there are don't want issues in the area highlighted. I do feel it is a well referenced section - perhaps more so than the rest of the article. Perhaps the content from that section could be better incorporated into the other sections of the article such as the Demographics section, or for the case of the Councillor assault in the the Governance section? What are people's thoughts? MapEdit ( talk) 13:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I removed the section without consent. It’s a matter of reference quality, not the amount of references or how well formatted the references are. One reference is from a gossip magazine and others concern reports mainly dating back a decade and a half ago, when it wasn’t even classified as a town yet. In comparison to Thornaby these type of reports are rare, if the section was formatted the same on the Thornaby article it would be quite long. Even then large parts of Thornaby are low crime with some parts having high crime rates. Why have a section about low crime then pick out each time it was reported. The more recent road upgrades can be a sentence in the transport section not a whole paragraph. Ingleby doesn’t have the best record for media reporting about the town. It is relatively isolated without a dedicated rail station, two bus services and no main high street. It is more like a group of villages with a lot of houses, at the moment since it has started to become more town-like so it might start to be reported on more often and hopefully more pictures since it is a struggle to find ones showing the place rather than fields. Chocolateediter ( talk) 12:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved Road references, info was there already so it there now just to back it up. I think Gossip Magazine [2] still exists, a pdf link would be handy, 2006 copy would be hard to track down on the internet. The information on the rest just isn’t that encyclopaedic, most of it is written like headlines. We must remember Teesside Live is owned by the same company as the frowned upon newspaper on Wikipedia, Daily Mail, so a lot of information sourced by it should be a last resort. In Ingleby’s case Teesside Live has to be used in cases to fill in gaps, D&S Times and Northern Echo are somewhat helpful to swap out for if they had also reported on it. I’ll look into a reference clean-up on the article, might not be able to find much. Just as a heads up date format is usually “# full-month year” (at-least on British articles, US full-month # year) ####-##-## short form is unhelpful for US users to understand, a lot of Wikipedians are friendly but pedantic. On my talk page you could message me if you want to learn tips. (PS I’m am on BST/UTC+1 just a bit of a night owl) Chocolateediter ( talk) 02:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
References