Talk:Sleaford/Archive 1

Archive 1

Considered for deletion??

I cannot believe that the wikifascists are considering this for deletion! Yet there it is, a banner declaring such, at the top of the page, dated June 2007. A classic example of why people no longer bother with creating great wikipedia pages like this one. (Anon 23:32, 2nd Aug 2007.

And currently there is a Refimprove banner on a page with 23 citations. If it is still there in a months time I will remove it.--Brunnian (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Post Dissolution Landowners

Quote:

• "From 1556 the ownership of the town and its lands passed from the church to local absentee landowners."

Question:

• Were they local or were they absentees? (RJP 13:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC))

Rename?

Should we rename Sleaford to Sleaford, Lincolnshire as that is what Wikipedia Naming Conventions dictates. --Jhfireboy I'm listening 08:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No they don't. We'd only have it at Sleaford, Lincolnshire if there were other important Sleafords, which there aren't even any other ones. Morwen - Talk 08:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There is another Sleaford in Hampshire. --Jhfireboy I'm listening 08:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Ok, then we need to make a diambiguation link to it because it isn't a big one. I shall do this. Morwen - Talk 09:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

true?

"These three schools feed a unique joint sixth-form consortium (pictured below).Even though the school has had many good ofsted reports many of the students come out depressed and dont get good grades There are also the nurseries. They are Redcroft Day Nursery, Woodside Children's Nursey, Happy Day Nursery and Sleaford Day Nursery."

Is there any references for this?

I can tell you that it is true, although Happy Days has since closed down. I will endeavour to find a research Mxb design (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we not need some mention about the close of flicks nightclub? 91.104.11.207 (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

done :) --83.105.91.203 (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC) (errant)

Notable Sleafordians

9 January 2012.

Of 18 “Notable Sleafordians”, 11 are acknowledged in their article as having some kind of association with Sleaford. However, Wikipedia does not self-reference – just because an article says someone was a “Sleafordian” in some fashion, doesn’t mean that another article can use it for reference. Of the 11 that note Sleaford, 9 are not referenced for necessary proof:

• The Handley family of Sleaford
• Spence Broughton
• John Hussey, 1st Baron Hussey of Sleaford
• Charles Shannon
• Bernie Taupin
• Mark Wallington
• "Bill" Wright
• 22-20s
• Lois Wilkinson – was blue linked inside The Caravelles

The other 2 have viable refs that I have now transferred to the article:

• Jennifer Saunders
• Eric Thompson

All have editorialising as uncited description added next to the names. These names could be associated with Sleaford, but WP is cornerstoned with Verifiability. Also there are many of the reffed and unreffed that state a tenuous link with Sleaford, and sometimes suck-in “notables” from the surrounding area and villages. The yardstick is that the notable was born in Sleaford and/or spent a considerable time of their life in Sleaford. There is no proof of this for any except for the two referenced.

I have added a template to the section questioning the validity of the list. My view is that only the verified Saunders and Thompson should remain for now; the others removed until references for association are found. A less radical view would be to remove all but those who mention Sleaford in their articles. The 7 that have no refs in the Sleaford article and make no mention of Sleaford in their own article should certainly go. Acabashi (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no wish to be unnecessarily sarcastic (or enter into a flame war), but I think you're being unnecessarily harsh in making a statement such as "The 7 that have no refs in the Sleaford article and make no mention of Sleaford in their own article should certainly go." As you clearly have a lot more time available than others of us who contribute to this article, might I please suggest you visit the local history section of Sleaford's library on Market Place, where I'm sure you will find more than adequate information on the Hussey's, Broughtons, Handley and other families to keep you occupied? - GrahamSmith (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a list; convention on lists is that if a referenced article exists on the subject that verifies the link then that is acceptable. I agree that any individuals without their own article would need a source - however if someone has a Wikipedia article (and are thus notable) with a cited connection to Sleaford then this is meets WP:V. Verification does not require us to use what I like to term the "brain-dead level" of referencing :) and as far as I can see all of the listed individuals have reasonable (some can be improved; but you should aim to improve them rather than delete). -Errant ^(chat!) 18:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way; I wrote the Handley's article and I assure you it is adequately referenced that they lived in Sleaford - perhaps you need to take a closer look :) and as Graham says research the offline sources. At the local history level you are not likely to find anything worthwhile online, legwork or nothing :) --Errant ^(chat!) 18:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand I agree a few of them are a bit tenuous; Mark Wallington (footballer), for example. Not really a "Sleafordian", so I removed him. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned about some of the above. For example, if you allow Jennifer Saunders and Bernie Taupin, you must allow Mark Wallington because he was not only born at Sleaford, but, to my own knowledge, also lived there significantly longer (for at least 17 years) than either Saunders (known to have been born in Sleaford but lived in Cranwell only for the first few years of her life) or Taupin (known to have been born at Anwick (which is not the same as Sleaford) and had moved out of the area by the age of 11).

You might argue that Saunders should be retained, despite her short connection, but Taupin certainly ought to go as his connection with the town is extremely tenuous.

In addition, of the two references in Saunder's WP article, one (bfi screenonline) is as reputable a source as, say, imdb.com, and as the other (The Times) requires a paid subscription to access the web site, it is therefore inaccessible to ad hoc enquiries to use as a source.

I would be interested on all of your takes on this. Not only because of its impact on Mark Wallington, but others presently or previously included on the list (for example: Saunders, Taupin, Abi Titmuss, Gary Crosby etc). There seems to be a choice between operating on one set (as at present, and reinstating some who have been removed) or another (remove some who are present but for whom there are no acceptable and verifiable citations.

If there are some rules, or exceptions, let us apply them even-handedly. Twistlethrop (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Notable Sleafordians

In the Notable Sleafordians section it notes "Two explorers are linked with the town:" but only names one, Cecil Rhodes. Keith D (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on this - I've removed this. It was a left over reference to a previous person who was actually from nearby Aswarby. Best wishes, —Noswall59 (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

Reversion and WP:CITEVAR

Re reversion of use of a citation template: six months ago there were plenty of uses of {{cite web}}, for example. I'm having difficulty reconciling the WP:CITEVAR guideline with their removal.

The reversion of the link to Francis Bugg was clearly wrong. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Charles Matthews: Hello, I get that I shouldn't have reverted the link - that was a genuine error and my fault - I didn't notice that you had added it. Thank you for doing so.

However, I reverted the edit because the article now has no citation templates other than the one you added, which seems to me to be against the MoS (at least insofar that the format used by the template is different from that used elsewhere). Since autumn, I have expanded this article massively - essentially giving it a total rewrite, something which has also expanded the number of sources (from 40-ish to well over 300). The citations used before did tend to use the template, but it was by no means consistent. Regardless, as a result of the rewrite, few (if any) of the sources which remain are the same as those which were in the article prior to that change, and so I am not sure that CITVAR applies here. It is not like I've only changed all the citations to suit a preference - I have rewritten the article. I reverted because the citations should be in a consistent style, and by changing one citation to incorporate a template, you have made that one citation inconsistent with the rest. I don't want to edit war: I thought I should explain myself here. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC).

Thank you for the explanation: I'm not often reverted, so I make a point of understanding what is at issue.

In the case of {{cite ODNB}}, I recommend its use because, for one thing, it is a well-developed template that routes the link through a DOI, which should prevent any future "link rot". That is on the technical and idealistic side. I happen to be involved in some major projects around the ODNB.

But as for the social side, there are ways of doing things. The guideline mentions "if you believe [the citation style] is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page". That is a matter of good practice. Doing a major rewrite doesn't confer ownership, as you'll appreciate. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Charles Matthews, I've only been here since last April and hadn't encountered the ODNB template - I think I will use it in future work. I apologise if I was rash to revert. Had I know the link was there, I wouldn't have done so. Instead, I felt that the template didn't add to the article, but simply created inconsistency. In future, I will make sure to bring it up though (and read the diffs more carefully!) On a largely unconnected note, I do have access to the ODNB through my university. I find it a tremendously useful and somewhat under-appreciated source (not as under-used as the History of Parliament series is, though). If there's anything I can do to help out, I am quite welcome to it. I can see that you were involved with the DNB transcriptions at WikiSource - is that still ongoing? Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC).

Yes, I was engaged in the DNB posting on Wikisource from 2009 to 2013 (when the first edition was done) and still work there on checking over the text and linking those articles here. WP:WPDNB is the corresponding project here, main focus being getting articles written, and I do listings for that. I'm also active on Wikidata, matching the ODNB identifiers (OBINs) to Wikidata items; which shortly will give a more automated way of generating listings. All in all, I agree with you on the merits of the content.

As a side note, the History of Parliament is on our radar at Wikidata also. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)