![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Hi - is the "this list is incomplete" still relevant? The list of pre-1996 mayors is now complete, and there don'tseem to be any gaps in the post-1996 list? Arthur R ( talk) 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware that the city council elects a mayor, but are they limited to choosing someone within their own ranks on the city council, or can they choose anyone including individuals outside of the council? -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 11:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
After checking the reference links at the bottom of this article, it appears that a number of them are not relevant. For example, link 18 directs to a tourism website of Bredasdorp, which has nothing to do with the surname, "van Breda". Several links are broken and I've flagged this article as out of date. 41.208.10.82 ( talk) 12:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and your recommendation is noted. I'd like to propose that this site be deleted. Some of the content, like the logo, is out of date and the links do not direct to useful information. Most of the links which are not broken are either bizarre or completely random. This article is also being used to populate a Facebook site and has generated some negative publicity. The City of Cape Town is obviously concerned that a professional image is projected and this article falls well short in this department. There are other, more accurate sites which provide details of the mayor of Cape Town which are of greater value. It would be better if the reader was directed to these sites instead of landing here. Please let me know if you have any objections - and are willing to do the work to update this site? 41.208.10.82 ( talk) 10:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, and for neatening up the article. I have no particular objection with retaining the page but this article would do better to be merged with other, more substantial City sites such as can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_cape_town. It seems pointless to maintain what is really an orphan site.
The links are now much improved but perhaps I can explain what the problem is with those that remain. In an ideal world, references would direct to an authoritative source that serves to substantiate the citation. In the case of this set of reference links, the reader is presented with redirects to sites such as an Armistice Day blog (link 4), a Geocities site (link 7 - one of the better links, depressingly), and a tourism website (link 9). These links cannot be considered hard evidence by any stretch. Reference 8 does not make it clear what kind of reference this is - I assume the citation is for a printed book? And I'm not at all sure what the purpose of including the first two links is - sensationalism? It would be better to replace these with reference links which actually support the text. What they certainly do not do is provide any form of reliable backing, which is the purpose of reference links (cf. your comment above). I'd like to believe that one of Wikipedia's aims is to provide user content which rises above this paltry level. Why not promote the pages which do offer better quality content? Repairing the site to meet these standards seems not worth the effort, hence my suggestion for its deletion. Retaining it simply because the topic meets a notability requirement ignores the poor quality of the content. The next best option - and a way to retain the information that is useful - is to merge it with the site cited above. Thoughts? 41.208.10.82 ( talk) 13:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I think we agree on the fundamentals, and if I am able to provide more reliable sources then that solves the main gripe. I will work on replacing them in due course. 41.208.10.82 ( talk) 07:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mayor of Cape Town. 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) 06:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Hi - is the "this list is incomplete" still relevant? The list of pre-1996 mayors is now complete, and there don'tseem to be any gaps in the post-1996 list? Arthur R ( talk) 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware that the city council elects a mayor, but are they limited to choosing someone within their own ranks on the city council, or can they choose anyone including individuals outside of the council? -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 11:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
After checking the reference links at the bottom of this article, it appears that a number of them are not relevant. For example, link 18 directs to a tourism website of Bredasdorp, which has nothing to do with the surname, "van Breda". Several links are broken and I've flagged this article as out of date. 41.208.10.82 ( talk) 12:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and your recommendation is noted. I'd like to propose that this site be deleted. Some of the content, like the logo, is out of date and the links do not direct to useful information. Most of the links which are not broken are either bizarre or completely random. This article is also being used to populate a Facebook site and has generated some negative publicity. The City of Cape Town is obviously concerned that a professional image is projected and this article falls well short in this department. There are other, more accurate sites which provide details of the mayor of Cape Town which are of greater value. It would be better if the reader was directed to these sites instead of landing here. Please let me know if you have any objections - and are willing to do the work to update this site? 41.208.10.82 ( talk) 10:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, and for neatening up the article. I have no particular objection with retaining the page but this article would do better to be merged with other, more substantial City sites such as can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_cape_town. It seems pointless to maintain what is really an orphan site.
The links are now much improved but perhaps I can explain what the problem is with those that remain. In an ideal world, references would direct to an authoritative source that serves to substantiate the citation. In the case of this set of reference links, the reader is presented with redirects to sites such as an Armistice Day blog (link 4), a Geocities site (link 7 - one of the better links, depressingly), and a tourism website (link 9). These links cannot be considered hard evidence by any stretch. Reference 8 does not make it clear what kind of reference this is - I assume the citation is for a printed book? And I'm not at all sure what the purpose of including the first two links is - sensationalism? It would be better to replace these with reference links which actually support the text. What they certainly do not do is provide any form of reliable backing, which is the purpose of reference links (cf. your comment above). I'd like to believe that one of Wikipedia's aims is to provide user content which rises above this paltry level. Why not promote the pages which do offer better quality content? Repairing the site to meet these standards seems not worth the effort, hence my suggestion for its deletion. Retaining it simply because the topic meets a notability requirement ignores the poor quality of the content. The next best option - and a way to retain the information that is useful - is to merge it with the site cited above. Thoughts? 41.208.10.82 ( talk) 13:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I think we agree on the fundamentals, and if I am able to provide more reliable sources then that solves the main gripe. I will work on replacing them in due course. 41.208.10.82 ( talk) 07:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mayor of Cape Town. 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) 06:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)