Talk:Bradley Stoke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject UK geography (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Bristol (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Parliamentary constituency


A lot of BS is not in the Northavon constituency at the moment. Don't have time to sort it out.

'Sadly broke'[edit]

The nickname 'Sadly Broke' is well known in the Bristol area and residents of Bradley Stoke. It can be considered to be an identifying feature of the development, which history recalls, was troubled by financial crisis in its early years. Therefore it is justified to include the "Sadly Broke" reference. It is a neutral statement that is not particularly offensive to any of the residents since it refers not to them but the financial difficulties of the original developers, which coincided with the late 80s property crash.

Comments please on whether you think it is valid to include this reference.

--Dunk 17:17, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dunk, the test is would you be startled to see this passage in Britannica or En Carta. I certainly would.
However, please revert because I know I can't make you understand.
Adrian Pingstone 17:30, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Who says we are trying to create an encyclopedia that is just like Britannica or En Carta. I believe the WP mandate can go far beyond that. Adding something that creates a bit of humour to an article, rather than a completely dry piece of prose, can add to the interest in the topic and should not be reverted on your principle.

The point is factually correct and non-offensive. Why should it be removed? --Dunk 17:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I support you. Althoughasptpasgosgjghsga. I don't see any obection to it. WP is different to "Britannica" or "En Carta" from the fact it is a community, and should be editable by all, I feel to compare it to such encyclopedic forms is unfair, WP:What Wikipedia is not states how it is not a paper-encyclopedia, and I feel this may be an example of that. However if this comment were to be seen as offencive by others, it's removal could be considered. Ian 13 20:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree it should be in there. In fact it might have been me that added it to the page originally... There's a wider point to be made here, apart from its historical veracity, that WP is not Brittanica, etc, all of which are very good reasons. There seems to be a tendency for people here to mistake interesting trivia, unusual writing styles, etc as POV, somehow. As a result there is a trend for articles to become more and more bland and dull over time, as new contribuors change things simply to eradicate these quirks, which overall do not alter the factual content of an article, only its style. I call it 'blandification' and I see it many articles. I think it should be resisted, though it's pretty difficult at times. If something is genuinely POV, or factually incorrect, by all means it should be changed - but simply changing a particular choice of words to another choice to eliminate more interesting language seems to me perverse and detrimental to the project. WP does not need to be dry. WP does not need to be a dull list of facts. All WP needs to be is true, and well-written. Graham 22:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I myself am relatively new to editing with an account at Wikipedia, but as long as interesting styles and facts are accurate, I feel it can only expand knowledge on a subject. I feel there is a great lession to be learnt. WP is very mixed in editors, but as long as it is accurate, I love it. Shame power corupts, and I think it may be the same here (just a hint). Ian 13 21:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, I give in, but continue to disagree with the comments above. Firstly, I don't know how much that "sadly broke" name was used. I live only 5 miles from Bradley Stoke but, at the time, never heard the phrase used, Secondly, it does sound jokey and silly, whether the enclopedia is on or off line. However, I'll leave it there under protest - Adrian Pingstone 15:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It was recently (well, 3 months ago) mentioned on a BBC National News article, as the nickname for badley stoke, when they were discussing falling house prices and rising interest rates. Also before that time, when I visited reletives in north england, they managed to pick up on the name, so it is quite well used. But I can see why it would sound inapproate. Ian13 (speak!) 20:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

'Bradley Stoke Examiner'[edit]

I personally see no reason to link there. It is a blog, with little or no citations. It is also a very new site, and I can see no claims of notability. Google contains 3 links (one to the article, one to the old website URL, and one to a newer one). The website is also currently down. Ian¹³/t 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that I am only trying to ensure the article is high quality - and can be used as a resourse for others... Ian¹³/t 19:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue the link should stay - seems pretty relevant to the article - what's the harm?? Nige 20:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well - what I said above - unless there is some reason why these arn't valid..? Ian¹³/t 20:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely the point is the link refers to Bradley Stoke and is thus a genuine Bradley SAtoke article - it doesn't matter one iota how many links off google it's got - my final word anyway as it's unbelieveably petty this whole discussion IMHO. There's a danger wiki will become too strict/anal if edits like these continue. Nige 20:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not swear. And if you believe it is 'unbelieveably petty' then why are you here - if discussing is wrong then Wikipedia wouldn't get very far. Please see WP:EL and WP:NOT a linkfarm. Ian¹³/t 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[From the anon user making the edits[ Thanks Nige. I think the site adds to the article, and despite what Ian is claiming, it is clearly a new news site, despite the fact it is run in Blogger. The definition of a site should not be down to the tools used to create it. The addition does no harm.

Also, Ian, the site was down due to vandalism of the Telewest network according to its homepage. I think *that* is a petty excuse to have a go at it if ever I saw one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.20.181 (talkcontribs)

It was a sidenote - and I was noting it was unstable (yes, it doesn't say how often it was down), however the following still stands, and once more I ask you to assume good faith:
  • It has little or no citations.
  • It is a very new site.
  • I still have no claims of notability besides 'it does no harm'.
  • No-where references it on Google (besides this article itself).
  • I can only assume you haven't read WP:EL and haven't tried to understand that WP:NOT a linkfarm.
And I would like to note that I am not in any way claiming to be an overseer of this article - but comments like "stop acting like some great overseer"[1] do not help a situation, and can be seen as incivil and personal attacks. For now I am leaving the link there to aid the situation, but I ask you continue discussion, else it may be removed once more. Thanks!
Ian¹³/t 19:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Ian, again: Three users got involved in the Examiner debate, two said keep it, you said take it down. I think this means it should stay. When you say in the edit 'no objections raised', I think there were actually TWO objections raised to removing it. I don't understand your logic to removing it when clearly there were more people - albeit a small number - who said it should remain. Please explain why you have once again acted without backing to remove it.

There were no objections to my views raised in the big bulleted list above (and still isn't), and as it stands one anon and one newish registered user have expressed concerns (who was highly uncivil and swore), no other long-term editors to the page (or content adders) have. To save my time, I quote from above:
It was a sidenote - and I was noting it was unstable (yes, it doesn't say how often it was down), however the following still stands, and once more I ask you to assume good faith:
  • It has little or no citations.
  • It is a very new site.
  • I still have no claims of notability besides 'it does no harm'.
  • No-where references it on Google (besides this article itself).
  • I can only assume you haven't read WP:EL and haven't tried to understand that WP:NOT a linkfarm.
And I would like to note that I am not in any way claiming to be an overseer of this article - but comments like "stop acting like some great overseer"[2] do not help a situation, and can be seen as incivil and personal attacks. For now I am leaving the link there to aid the situation, but I ask you continue discussion, else it may be removed once more. Thanks!
Ian¹³/t 19:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Concerns over it failing WP:WEB have also not been addressed (nor if you are afflicated with the website). Generally people who only appear to add links and not content are given less weight in straw polls (and discussion is not a straw poll by the way - is its a discussion). Ian¹³/t 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Just seen this debate. How funny. Ian; I find it amazing you think the word 'anal' is swearing. I quote dictionary.com: Indicating personality traits that originated during toilet training and are distinguished as anal-expulsive or anal-retentive.
I am sure you are aware of the context it was used in - and it was clearly not this defination. The same can be said for nearly all swear words. If they are used with suffecient venom or to offend - then it becomes disruptive to the discussion. Do you have any points to raise about what I stated above and why I feel the link should be removed? Ian¹³/t 20:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Town or estate?[edit]

I'd like to reopen this debate. Bradley Stoke is not a town by any other measure other than it calls itself one. Bradley Stoke has parish council which calls itself a "town council" and there is nothing to stop it doing so. Historically a Town was somewhere with a charter for a market from the crown, Bradley Stoke does not have a market or a market square, nor does the new building count either as this is not provide the same kind of public space. Consequently calling Bradley Stoke a town is misleading.

By almost all classifications and expectations of a town, I would suggest Bradley Stoke falls short other then postal address and population. For example, there is no high street, common public space such a market square or parkland, theatre etc, etc.... Bullgod01 14:35, 10 March 2008 (GMT)

I noticed that someone changed the article to say that Bradley Stoke is a town, rather than a large housing estate, but this was reverted pretty much immediately by Ian13 without any explaination why. So, what is the status of the place? It has a town council, doesn't this make it a town? What does everyone think?

I am also happy with it being called a town. I really should have added some explanation, however this article is quite inactive. The things I had a problem with were "new" since articles are designed to not reflect a relative time frame since we try and make it usable for the future without modification. I also disagreed with "PostalTown= BRADLEY STOKE". Postal Town is based on the prefix to the postcode, and BS is Bristol, and hence should be shown as such. The word large was also removed, and although this could have been better explained, compared to others at the time it was built, it is very large. Since I felt "purpose-built town" and "large housing estate" were pretty much interchangeable, a blanket revert didn't seem to out of place at the time. Feel happy to address any of these issues I have stated, or refer to it as "purpose-built town". Hope this clears it up. Ian¹³/t 16:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, I agree that 'a new purpose-built town' sounds a bit silly, after all it's not like places become towns accidently, they are all purpose built. :) Maybe we should just stick to 'a town in South Gloucestershire'. I know about all about post towns now, thanks to having to check 12,000 of them on a database in work, and you're absolutely right about that, the post town is Bristol. Gasheadsteve 17:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh wow, I want over 12,000 post towns :D Ian¹³/t 21:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fire Brigade[edit]

Just noticed this one - are we sure that Bradley Stoke is served by Gloucestershire Fire Brigade? (see links on the right of the main page).

Looking here: http://www.avonfirebrigade.gov.uk/stn_locator.asp seems to suggest we're in Avon Fire & Rescue's patch. Anyone got any ideas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.69.60.199 (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

I think this was autogenerated because of the Glos county - I've changed it. Do you think the same applies to any surrounding areas?— Rod talk 18:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does - Avon F&R's area goes up as far as the South Gloucs border. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.185.240.120 (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
Thanks - can you name the areas likely to be affected so we can change the Fire & Rescue entry in the infoboxes? — Rod talk 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rod. It's basically all the areas in South Gloucestershire. I had a quick check around - Longwell Green/Filton didn't have info but Thornbury had just so that needs to be amended.


Media/Bradley Stoke Local[edit]

Wanted to add some discussion over this seemingly 'hot topic'. A few points: Bradley Stoke Matters, Examiner, Journal are all established media sources for the town and it seems they warrant reference in the piece. The Bristol article, for example, makes reference to media for there, so it seems fitting to have the same for Bradley Stoke. Secondly, Examiner/Journal both run on Wordpress but blog this does make either. Examiner has been nominated for a newspaper award for two years running so feels established enough to include. Bradley Stoke Local, though, has no Google references and much of its content is quite clearly rehashes of stories from Examiner/Journal so does not feel worthy of mention. Any other views? Reg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regshaw (talkcontribs)

Yes, it might warrant a mention, but in an article about a town, promotion of awards and so forth for which they have been nominated is not suitable for an article about the town (and they also don't warrant their own articles). With regards to 'Bradley Stoke Local', we are not in a position to decide on any rehashing/copyright violations as it is for the original authors to make such a claim, but regarding their inclusion Google seems to make little reference to them, as opposed to Examiner/Journal (even then they are pretty thin on the ground). I don't see any reason why we might want to include Local though. Ian¹³/t 12:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, Ian. Re BS Local - I was not making a claim of copyright breach on behalf of the publications involved: merely pointing out that the Journal/Examiner's content was clearly 'exclusive' where BSL wasn't. From that perspective it seemed clear that it didn't merit inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regshaw (talkcontribs) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I take your point, but its easier to work on the basis that no-one really references on them or writes about them. Obviously, its not really for us to try and decide who has the most exclusive stories and the value of this. If they seem somewhat notable (which the Local doesn't really appear to be at present) then they should be included. Ian¹³/t 21:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I've manually reverted the edits made by 90.202.151.239 as they were not what was agreed through the discussion here. Ian, I've got completely lost on where we had got in talking this through? Regshaw (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I spoke to the Local and they never added the link. They don't want to be put on this page for the many silly edits. (See BS Local Website)
The BS Local has said all the "information/news" comes from the:
BBC - Example the Lion Story.
braldeystoke.gov.uk
southglos.gov.uk
and all the BS Local Users (Main Source).
As news does come form the users some news “could” be the same as other sites. If the concerned sites contact the local the news will be removed ASAP, and users emailed not to submit content from other sites.
You may know that the sadlybroke.com site started to change the way it looks to match the BS Local.
Example:
They now have a weather and webacm page like the BS Local!
The BS Local wanted to be a full community website, news from the people, and a site created by people not “word press”.
The BS Local are stressing that their link should not be added to this page as the page is about Bradley Stoke and not Community websites in Bradley Stoke, and if users want to visit the Bradley Stoke Local they can got to a search engine like Google, Yahoo, Live Search, etc. The BS Local also added: “It can take a very long time to get onto Google. We are referenced on Google but we have more references on the search engine Yahoo. The Bradley Stoke local also feel personally attacked by the Wikipedia administrator Lan13 and Regshaw. Please never talk about the Bradley Stoke Local on Wikipedia."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.151.82 (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there unsigned visitor. I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make here? In terms of the 'weather & webcam' page you're claiming is a copy, the Internet Archive (I just had a check) shows sadlybroke.com has had a weather/webcam page since 2007. I'm not personally attacking any publication here - I hope you didn't get that impression. Just simply trying to discuss (in a grown up way) if websites warrant inclusion. Regshaw (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
What a change in your tone of voice. Yes Sadlybroke.com has since 2007 included the weather on the site. After the launch of the BSL they used two different pages, one for the weather and one for the webcam, like the BSL. I do think you are attacking publications and I am now starting to think if you run the site sadlybroke.com. You also clamed that BSL had no references on Google (It does, 3 i might add not a lot i know) but more on other search engines (DO you know of Yahoo? “It is big search engine”). To get on to Google it will take a new site an average of 6 months for the 1st pages to show. The BSL has not being running for 3 months yet and the 1st pages are starting to show up! The BSL also has lots of visitors to the site; it was originally designed and created by a group of people all under 18 to be a community website and all you do is mark it as a copy! By offending the BSL you are offending all of its users (not all under 18) so in turn offending the people of Bradley Stoke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.151.82 (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please try and discuss this without accusations of change of tone - as far as I'm aware you cannot detect what tone my voice is from text, unless you've found some way of doing that? Checking back to the 2007 archive of sadlybroke.com clearly shows "weather and webcam" on their homepage. I'm not offending you at all and I applaud the fact youths are doing something constructive with their time. But the site appears to be in its infancy right now so perhaps does not quite warrant linkage Wikipedia? Maybe when the site has grown up a bit in a few months it will ... Regshaw (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
You’re very rude! They don't want or need a link because of people like you, and silly wiki talks. Don't you think the use of the word of "Youths" "When the site has grown up" is a personal attack? You’re an insult to the people of Bradley Stoke. I would like to see you do better with a website! Made with notepad, Jscript, and not Wordpress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.151.82 (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry if you feel that way, I guess the discussion is over. Thanks. Regshaw (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
"Well, I'm sorry if you feel that way" coming from you, yeh i bet you are. Yes i think this discussion is over. Not really a grown up discussion you wanted it to be then? Oh and that was one link not 2! (Weather & Webcam) not | Webcam | Weather | 1 and 2 difference? Do you see it 1 and 2 see 1 and 2 differnet! As i can tell you know nothing about web development.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.151.82 (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, please do not act such as to speak on behalf of an organisation without first providing evidence that you are in a position to do so (and in line with no original research, please don't do it at all unless it is a biography on a living person). Secondly, please do not clear discussion from this page, as it exists as a permanent record of discussions as to the article content.
This talk page on the Bradley Stoke article exists as to discuss the content of the page, and the inclusion of a website is obviously relevant. I am sorry if the owners of a website are offended by this discussion, but we aim to conduct it in a neutral manner assessing how it might warrant inclusion, and whilst some comments on the legitimacy of the content were raised, I attempted to address such comments and make it clear they were not constructive.
I think both myself and Regshaw have made the purposes of this discussion clear to you, and please therefore do not attack either of us personally with things such as "because of people like you", "i can tell you know nothing about web development", and "your now a hit with the people of the Braldey Stoke", as we are here to discuss the content of the article. I strongly advise you to read the page on No personal attacks, and understand that if it continues, warnings and blocks from editing may be issued. I hope this clarifys matters, and I have additionally reversed the blanking of the media section/links conduced three times by 90.202.151.82 (talk · contribs), and wish to also point out 3RR to you. Yours, Ian¹³/t 10:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)