Talk:Tenby Lifeboat Station

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.rnli.org.uk/rnli_near_you/west/stations/TenbyPembrokeshire/history. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Improvement (discussion copied from UserTalk:Tony Holkham)

Thank you for the Tenby tidy. I thought I might have been too drastic and so left a few words. How did it get to be as it was? SovalValtos (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't think you were drastic enough - seems quite heavy reading to me with too much complex explanation of technical aspects. Some of Wikipedia's RNLI articles seem to be taken straight off RNLI websites which aren't themselves always easy to read. If I were you I would rewrite it substantially - be bold. Sorry, didn't understand your question: "How did it get to be as it was?". Tony Holkham (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I only re did one section. That was hard work, trying to understand and to keep the original sense(?). "How did it get to be as it was?", was more a cry of despair than a question. I am not sure I want to take on a project amending all RNLI entries yet. I am still feeling my way at editing, finding what response there is to interventions, if any. SovalValtos (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The way I do it is (a) look at the talk page and see what current interest there is, (b) look at the edit history, ditto and if there's no recent interest, go for it. If there is recent interest then I give my opinion on the talk page, wait a few days and see what happens. If still no input, do what you think. If you follow that process as a general rule, "interventions" are unlikely to be a problem. Wikipedia is about consensus.

Not suggesting you tackle all the RNLI articles!! This one, though, does need work. If you want any input from me, just ask - I'm very familiar with the RNLI as I wrote one of their regional magazines for 5 years.

And don't forget you can use your sandbox (a tab on your user page) to experiment without touching the article. Just click the article's "edit this page", select the content, copy, then click "cancel at the bottom, then paste it into the sandbox and play around with it. You can use the reverse process when you're happy with it. Just make sure you retain anything in curly brackets {{. Tony Holkham (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

Suggestion: Pics would be better on the right (Wiki-preferred) and not 260px, just minimal. Tony Holkham (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Template Wording

The box on the right, which I think is derived from a template or Geobox, uses the word Visitation for a section. Surely Visiting would be better? I cannot find how to change it. Would changing it on one page, change the other pages where it is used? I hope so.SovalValtos (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

How can the article be made better?

What needs to be done? I have rather a soft spot for this article as it was the first time I was BOLD in re writing SovalValtos (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I would say it is heavy on the infrastructure side (which could be trimmed a little), with only a brief mention of awards, which could be expanded with details of significant rescues. More information could probably be gleaned from the external links, and maybe the other refs.

Having a look at some of the better lifeboat station articles should provide some ideas. And there's no reason why you shouldn't contact the station directly if you wanted to, maybe for an action pic or two. Tony Holkham (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Tony HolkhamThank you for the hints. Can we be told which is the current best example to work towards, or exceed in quality? Although there broadly has been no dispute in writing there is other stuff which needs to be improved in Wiki techy terms. I have only a feeble grasp of GA etc, but once one Lifeboat article has achieved the best standard, it should be simple to bring the rest up to snuff. So help please from those who know what is needed and all will be simple. SovalValtos (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I tend not to think in terms of GA, but clarity, accuracy and completeness, which may or may not amount to the same thing. Listed on my user page are the points I try to go by. As far as the best lifeboat station articles - I wish I knew! Everyone will have a different opinion, and to put it to a wider audience it might be worth going to the Teahouse or Wikipedia:WikiProject Water sports/RNLI task force.

Sometimes I start (but don't complete) the process "Create a book" to see what it would look like in print. That's been quite helpful. Tony Holkham (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I've re-assessed the article as C-class. It has good writing and good sourcing, and the main thing to do now is to verify the content - dates listed as Wikipedia (such as, say, the first motor powered vessel in 1923) have tendency to float over the internet even if they're wrong. Once an inline citation has been put on everything, it can be upgraded to B-class. For a GA, it needs a little expansion of its history, which I can probably do from a British newspaper archive source, which will hopefully throw up coverage from c. 1850 - 1950. I re-added a brief mention of Grand Designs, as the episode does get repeated semi-regularly on some repeat channels, so I think that's prominent. But per WP:BLP1E, don't mention anything else. (Actually that's why I'm typing this now, it's been repeated on More 4 in the background just now). As for a comparable article, I expanded Barmouth Bridge a while back which is not to GA standard, but not too far off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tenby Lifeboat Station. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927114833/http://www.rnli.org.uk/rnli_near_you/west/stations/TenbyPembrokeshire/history to http://www.rnli.org.uk/rnli_near_you/west/stations/TenbyPembrokeshire/history
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927114833/http://www.rnli.org.uk/rnli_near_you/west/stations/TenbyPembrokeshire/history to http://www.rnli.org.uk/rnli_near_you/west/stations/TenbyPembrokeshire/history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 10:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)