![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. --- J.S ( t| c) 18:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The bold font under the gallery images, is it necessary? Wikipedia should not be to bold, however it looks pretty neat! any other opinions? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 17:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The criticism of the plan for not using local materials is in fact not part of the plan, but should be a separate section headed Criticism that then voices critical or opposing views. Further, such comments should be documented as substantial criticism rather than a Wikipedia member voicing their opinion. There may be perfectly good reasons why materials were sourced other than locally, especially in the context of time. As the sustainability movement has grown, recently and rapidly, its values have evolved as well. These sorts of opinion needs to be set out in some proper external forum - not Wikipedia, and then only if it generates enough traction to merit documentation in an encyclopaedia, cite it here.
I put this as a talking point rather than change it, as I don't have the time to log in, do the proper research and make the changes right now.
This comment is released into the public domain, and should stand on its own merits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.92.101 ( talk) 03:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Do we know anything about Poundbury on a municipal level? Is it a civil parish on its own, or is it attached to Dorchester? Does it have a mayor or similar?
Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 16:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Poundbury. 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) 01:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a citation in the article to a paper with this title. I cannot find it anywhere online. It makes one of the key points about the failure of Poundsbury to reduce reliance on cars. Can anyone please share it here? Cleopatran Apocalypse ( talk) 13:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Can't find the publication, but maybe you could contact the lead author? https://www.brookes.ac.uk/templates/pages/staff.aspx?uid=p0054496 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.32.122.37 ( talk) 20:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I cannot see why this summing-up of the praise and criticism of Poundbury has been deleted from the lede…
…in favour of this bland and obvious statement that tells us nothing:
I transferred the cites and the superfluous request 'citation needed' beside the statement in the lede Poundbury has been praised for reviving the low-rise streetscape built to the human scale. But someone has reverted this. Cites belong in the main article, and should not compromise the simplicity which is the essence of a good lede. Valetude ( talk) 23:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
New section needed. S C Cheese ( talk) 14:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. --- J.S ( t| c) 18:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The bold font under the gallery images, is it necessary? Wikipedia should not be to bold, however it looks pretty neat! any other opinions? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 17:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The criticism of the plan for not using local materials is in fact not part of the plan, but should be a separate section headed Criticism that then voices critical or opposing views. Further, such comments should be documented as substantial criticism rather than a Wikipedia member voicing their opinion. There may be perfectly good reasons why materials were sourced other than locally, especially in the context of time. As the sustainability movement has grown, recently and rapidly, its values have evolved as well. These sorts of opinion needs to be set out in some proper external forum - not Wikipedia, and then only if it generates enough traction to merit documentation in an encyclopaedia, cite it here.
I put this as a talking point rather than change it, as I don't have the time to log in, do the proper research and make the changes right now.
This comment is released into the public domain, and should stand on its own merits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.92.101 ( talk) 03:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Do we know anything about Poundbury on a municipal level? Is it a civil parish on its own, or is it attached to Dorchester? Does it have a mayor or similar?
Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 16:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Poundbury. 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) 01:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a citation in the article to a paper with this title. I cannot find it anywhere online. It makes one of the key points about the failure of Poundsbury to reduce reliance on cars. Can anyone please share it here? Cleopatran Apocalypse ( talk) 13:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Can't find the publication, but maybe you could contact the lead author? https://www.brookes.ac.uk/templates/pages/staff.aspx?uid=p0054496 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.32.122.37 ( talk) 20:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I cannot see why this summing-up of the praise and criticism of Poundbury has been deleted from the lede…
…in favour of this bland and obvious statement that tells us nothing:
I transferred the cites and the superfluous request 'citation needed' beside the statement in the lede Poundbury has been praised for reviving the low-rise streetscape built to the human scale. But someone has reverted this. Cites belong in the main article, and should not compromise the simplicity which is the essence of a good lede. Valetude ( talk) 23:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
New section needed. S C Cheese ( talk) 14:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)