Wikipedia

Talk:Congleton

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Community Tech bot in topic A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
Learn more about this page

Assessment Report

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  1. Article needs to be expanded using Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements as a guide.
  2. References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. (See WP:References, [[WP:V], and WP:CITE for guidance.)

 DDStretch  (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Untitled

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A disambiguation page might be necessary: Congleton is both a town and a borough. (Added on 21:24, July 6, 2005 by User:82.36.232.110)

Done!  DDStretch  (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


I am pretty sure the actual rhyme, or atleast another rhyme(seemingly the main rhyme) Not the rubbish that is on the wiki page now....and the 1 the council uses on its informational boards. Is... "Congleton rare, Congleton rare, Sold the Town Bible to buy a new bear." Apart from on a council informational board within congleton, this can also be found on www.econgleton.co.uk. So if some one wants to change it...or add both.? --Duncan2688 20:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The repeated addition of Gerry Tobin to the Notable Residents section

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Adding Gerry Tobin to the Notable Residents section is not really appropriate. If one reads WP:NN, especially WP:NN#Notability is not temporary, one sees the following sentences:

Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest.

Similarly, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information has, as point 5, the following sentences:

News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately.Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews.

It also contains the following footnote:

The briefer the appearance of a subject in the news, the lower the likelihood of creating an acceptably comprehensive encyclopedic biography. In order to help keep articles concise, efficient, and on-topic (and to help reduce privacy concerns), editors are invited to consider whether, in a particular article, the names of specific individuals could be redacted without the loss of non-trivial information or necessary clarity. Even when news events themselves merit an encyclopedia article of their own, additional biographies of person(s) involved may not be necessary, for instance, where they largely duplicate relevant information.

Consequently, I am kindly asking User:82.2.152.193 to refrain from adding this information a third time, after it has been removed on two occasions.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Congleton fly tying club is almost certainly an inappropriate link per WP:EXTERNAL. The web page linked to advertises "popular speaker evenings" with a secondary page listing the charges for these evenings. It's hard to see what this link achieves other than to promote the organisation in question and thereby gain them new members and therefore revenue, which seems to fall foul of WP:ADV.

The Congleton Choral Society website doesn't meet any of the criteria for inclusion at WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. The main purpose of the site seems to be to promote the groups services, which they charge for. There's a big ad right in the centre of it charging 12 pounds for concert, an ad at the side of that advertising a singing day which costs 18 quid and to the left there's an ad for music for hire. Seems a classic case of WP:SPAM to me and I struggle to see what it tells the reader about the subject of the article, which is Congleton. Valenciano (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

There has to be a balance between protecting the reader from purely commercial sites and informing him or her as to the amenities available. If there were neutral websites which could be used to show these amenities, these would obviously be preferable. But it seems there are not. As in most other towns, amateur flying and choral singing do not exist in Congleton in a free charity-based form, and it is beneficial to any reader to know that if they intended to pursue these interests in the town that they would be joining semi-commercial organisations. It's very naive to think that any cultural or leisure club or organisation can exist today in an economic vacuum. Even many churches advertise money-making events on their websites - is that good reason to ban them? We no longer live in a country where these amenities are free for all, if they ever were. I hardly think Congleton Choral Society website is a "classic case of spam". But what do other editors think? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've asked for input at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#local_clubs_and_societies Valenciano (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
That's a very a good idea. I'm happy to go along with any expert advice. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply


Just seen the discussion at EL noticeboard and came for a look, at first sight nearly all the external links are not really encyclopedic and are not needed, this is an encyclopedia entry not a local web directory. I would have removed most of them but it is not appropriate while the discussion is still open, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
They seem useful. I have no objection if that usefulness could be integrated into the article. I don't see that any particular minority interests should themselves be classed as "unecyclopedic", even if their current means of presentation is deemed to be so. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Useful is not encyclopedic, not really about minority interest but the link should add to the article. One example - A link to find the latest news about a football club is not encyclopedic it is already mentioned in the article and has a related article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
While I'm sorry there is no longer any mention of the Choral Society, I have to admit that the list looks tidier. If anything comes to light about the Society that would improve the article, I'll try and add it. But what about this link? To me this looks more boderline than the two that have just been deleted. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Agree about the link appears to be be more promotional and I have removed it,any views on www.discovercheshire.co.uk links which are more travelguide than encyclopedia? MilborneOne (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply


edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Useful literature reference- True knowledge. Can any one give a reference to the OE: Yongleton claim my by ip-user. All googles seem to point to previous removed wikitext. Any ideas? We still have unsupported claimsd about Bug-town and Tin-town I suspect this factoid stems from this era. If true it may be possible to work it into the Toponymy- can anyone find a non circular reference. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I saw that, too. I suspect that the IP was citing a circular reference without realizing it. I cannot find any reliable sources to support the assertion. Location (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Congleton. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Congleton. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Congleton. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Notable People

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The Notable people are listed in three sections in alphabetical order. In the edit area and hidden from view is a request that they remain in Alpha order. And there is a comment (by me), also hidden. May I open this issue up for discussion?

Do people have views - Apha order or Date order?

ArbieP (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Re-ordered in date order and deleted the hidden comments ArbieP (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Congleton&oldid=1206771988"