This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Shaftesbury article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archive 1 (2007—2008) |
Someone has added the 'welsh' name of the town, I am a little confused to why this has happened and have not yet had a reply from the editor involved. I have just taken it off until the relevance of giving welsh names to places outside of wales can be clarified. -- Curuxz ( talk) 00:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering why there were [2] and [3] in the history section and traced it back to some vandalism and "non-wikified" repair. Fixed by getting the refs from this diff in case anybody wonders. Huw Powell ( talk) 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at articles such as Bath, Somerset, or Bristol. You won't see external links to the local theatre there. Nor will you see lightweight "town websites" which are directories of local businesses or events. Most town/city articles need little more than the local council - in the case of this site that is http://www.shaftesburydorset.com/ - and some other well chosen and notable sites which meet the criteria set out in WP:ELNO - especially the very first one. Everything else should be taken out. If there are links that of value then consider putting a link to DMOZ (the Open Directory) on the site, and/or or to Wikitravel if the town is a tourist destination. I really don't see how http://www.shaftesburytown.co.uk/ could possibly meet the criteria for inclusion. -- Simple Bob ( talk) 19:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok I take the point about the theatre, but referring to it as a spam page when it is free (and the so called official one charges for certain types of listing) is not showing good faith. I would also point out that the UK Government directgov website lists this equally along side shaftesburydorset (see http://www.dorsetforyou.com/343604) as well as it being on DMOZ. Bath is a little different in its greater size and lack of local controversy about webpages (Which has in previous years been in the press in Shaftesbury). I feel that after arguments about this in the past a consensus was reached on this talk page and the concept of both links had been widely accepted (see archives), a consensus you unilaterally broke removing the links. I would ask it be kept on in the state that everyone was happy with for the last few years until your desire to remove it has been properly mooted on the talk page. Regards -- Curuxz ( talk) 11:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been copied from my own talk page ( User talk:PaleCloudedWhite), where it originally took place. The discussion followed the addition and removal of an image on 19th January 2012. The discussion has been slightly amended here, to remove text which could be confusing in this context. A slightly different form of this discussion has also been copied on to the Gold Hill talk page. [This notice posted by PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 23:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion proceeded as follows:
There are a number of reasons why my picture has more quality than the previous one (taken in bright sunshine but without any black whatsoever). It has to do with the quality of the lens and the camera, the amount of pixels, contrast, sharpness and the improvements while processing the picture in Adobe Photoshop CS5. I hope you are somebody who can be persuaded by arguments. If I can't convince you, check with somebody who knows about photography. No hard feelings though... :-) Thundercloud ( talk) 20:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
(After edit conflict) I also agree that the wall is an important component of Gold Hill, but the effect on the composition in Thundercloud's pic is to draw the eye to a point at the foot of the wall's buttresses (where the lines of the street and the wall converge), whereas in the pic in the sunshine the eye is drawn to the line of houses. Also the pic in the sunshine more closely resembles the classic image of Gold Hill, and therefore is in my view also preferable on that account. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 21:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with Gold Hill myself, so I can't comment on which photo has a better composition. I will say, however, that I think the brighter photo looks better in the page than the darker photo. It's a lot easier to pick out features within the brighter photo. That being said, I think the darker photo is generally superior at full resolution. Could it perhaps be lightened to look better in the thumbnail? Mahahahaneapneap ( talk) 22:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the brighter image is the better option for the lead thumbnailed image. I find the wall intrudes a bit too much into Thundercloud's image and is a little bit distracting. There's a collection of images on the commons so I've created a category (which includes Thundercloud's image) and added a link to the Gold Hill article. Barret ( talk) 21:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Shaston redirects here, but it's also the name of the system font of the Apple IIgs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 ( talk) 20:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The A & E department was downgraded to a daytime only minor injuries department when West Dorset Healthcare took over responsibility for the hospital. Richard Avery ( talk) 13:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shaftesbury. 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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shaftesbury. 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) 12:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Shaftesbury. 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) 11:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Shaftesbury. 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.s299639758.websitehome.co.uk/shaftesbury.htmlWhen 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) 12:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Shaftesbury article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archive 1 (2007—2008) |
Someone has added the 'welsh' name of the town, I am a little confused to why this has happened and have not yet had a reply from the editor involved. I have just taken it off until the relevance of giving welsh names to places outside of wales can be clarified. -- Curuxz ( talk) 00:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering why there were [2] and [3] in the history section and traced it back to some vandalism and "non-wikified" repair. Fixed by getting the refs from this diff in case anybody wonders. Huw Powell ( talk) 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at articles such as Bath, Somerset, or Bristol. You won't see external links to the local theatre there. Nor will you see lightweight "town websites" which are directories of local businesses or events. Most town/city articles need little more than the local council - in the case of this site that is http://www.shaftesburydorset.com/ - and some other well chosen and notable sites which meet the criteria set out in WP:ELNO - especially the very first one. Everything else should be taken out. If there are links that of value then consider putting a link to DMOZ (the Open Directory) on the site, and/or or to Wikitravel if the town is a tourist destination. I really don't see how http://www.shaftesburytown.co.uk/ could possibly meet the criteria for inclusion. -- Simple Bob ( talk) 19:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok I take the point about the theatre, but referring to it as a spam page when it is free (and the so called official one charges for certain types of listing) is not showing good faith. I would also point out that the UK Government directgov website lists this equally along side shaftesburydorset (see http://www.dorsetforyou.com/343604) as well as it being on DMOZ. Bath is a little different in its greater size and lack of local controversy about webpages (Which has in previous years been in the press in Shaftesbury). I feel that after arguments about this in the past a consensus was reached on this talk page and the concept of both links had been widely accepted (see archives), a consensus you unilaterally broke removing the links. I would ask it be kept on in the state that everyone was happy with for the last few years until your desire to remove it has been properly mooted on the talk page. Regards -- Curuxz ( talk) 11:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been copied from my own talk page ( User talk:PaleCloudedWhite), where it originally took place. The discussion followed the addition and removal of an image on 19th January 2012. The discussion has been slightly amended here, to remove text which could be confusing in this context. A slightly different form of this discussion has also been copied on to the Gold Hill talk page. [This notice posted by PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 23:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion proceeded as follows:
There are a number of reasons why my picture has more quality than the previous one (taken in bright sunshine but without any black whatsoever). It has to do with the quality of the lens and the camera, the amount of pixels, contrast, sharpness and the improvements while processing the picture in Adobe Photoshop CS5. I hope you are somebody who can be persuaded by arguments. If I can't convince you, check with somebody who knows about photography. No hard feelings though... :-) Thundercloud ( talk) 20:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
(After edit conflict) I also agree that the wall is an important component of Gold Hill, but the effect on the composition in Thundercloud's pic is to draw the eye to a point at the foot of the wall's buttresses (where the lines of the street and the wall converge), whereas in the pic in the sunshine the eye is drawn to the line of houses. Also the pic in the sunshine more closely resembles the classic image of Gold Hill, and therefore is in my view also preferable on that account. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 21:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with Gold Hill myself, so I can't comment on which photo has a better composition. I will say, however, that I think the brighter photo looks better in the page than the darker photo. It's a lot easier to pick out features within the brighter photo. That being said, I think the darker photo is generally superior at full resolution. Could it perhaps be lightened to look better in the thumbnail? Mahahahaneapneap ( talk) 22:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the brighter image is the better option for the lead thumbnailed image. I find the wall intrudes a bit too much into Thundercloud's image and is a little bit distracting. There's a collection of images on the commons so I've created a category (which includes Thundercloud's image) and added a link to the Gold Hill article. Barret ( talk) 21:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Shaston redirects here, but it's also the name of the system font of the Apple IIgs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 ( talk) 20:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The A & E department was downgraded to a daytime only minor injuries department when West Dorset Healthcare took over responsibility for the hospital. Richard Avery ( talk) 13:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shaftesbury. 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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shaftesbury. 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) 12:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Shaftesbury. 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) 11:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Shaftesbury. 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.s299639758.websitehome.co.uk/shaftesbury.htmlWhen 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) 12:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)