Talk:Self-managed social centres in the United Kingdom

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Social centres in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160202220639/http://www.thecommonplace.org.uk/ to http://www.thecommonplace.org.uk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

i fixed the archive link, now it goes to the closed commonplace page, not the shitty sustainable living website that came after Mardypoop (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Page revamp

Hi I've just undone the redirect to autonomous social centres and put in a new version. A few discussion points:

• the previous version was seen by some as full of cruft and spam. in fact i think that really referred to one section with a lot of self-links.
• the old page had this - DEFAULTSORT:Uk Social Centre Network - i don't know what that is, if someone knows what it is and wants to reinsert it please go ahead
• in my opinion this page is well sourced, with over 30 references. if you disagree please state reasons here and we can work to make the page better section by section

Mujinga (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• A nice start!
• "UK Social Centre Network" was the previous name of the page, so it's fine to remove the defaultsort
• As you alluded, tables without clear notability guidelines become Wikipedia's most likely cruft magnets. If we cannot source the address/status data to reliable, secondary sources, we should not include it. We also don't link external links in tables like that. The name and location (city) for each venue should be sufficient. Even then, I'd limit the list to entries with their own pages so that the venue doesn't collect squats on the virtue of a single reference that mentions its name in passing. (Since WP is not a directory.) czar 15:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

actually i was alluding to the evicted social centres section which had something like 13 self-links and 1 news link. regarding the table how would we limit it to entries with their own pages? it's something i also considered but on the flipside why should centres be excluded if they have references but do not yet have their own page.

on another tangent, i do like the idea of one table with different colours for current and former social centres Mujinga (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

An alternative table (in progress) Mujinga (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• WP:CSC is how WP chooses list selection criteria. If the list is going to be mostly non-notable entries (no separate articles), would indicate that the list is better suited to only include a selection of the most noteworthy (rather than any squat that is ever mentioned in a newspaper).
• Why not combine the "Established" and "Status" columns as a single year range? That would be more useful.

czar 14:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing

• Do or Die is not a reliable source for statements of fact in an encyclopedia.
• Per User_talk:RossPepier#October 2018, neither are the following: newcastlegateshead.com (a tourism site?), Urban75, uncarved.org (or the magazine whose copyright it violates?), and Manchester Mule, each having no indication of editorial oversight, distance, or reputation/pedigree

czar 16:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Other opinions are of course welcome, in my view:

• Two specific articles arguing two sides of a debate from a journal which is a 384 page book seems fine for me with 'Do or Die' 10 ISSN 1462-5989.
• Newcastlegateshead.com is as you might expect a website from Newcastle City Council and the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead, therefore for me fine but actually since there are already two better refs for star and shadow it doesn't need to stay (unless someone wants secondary source references for locations of course)
• The still extant uncarved.org is the website of John Eden, a subject matter expert in this field. Good spot that it was archiving the Smile magazine article, i wonder if it was from the publication by Stewart Home, if so no copyright probs there. I found an author and have updated the ref
• A feature from local experts Urban75 seems fine to use to me, although actually i'm surprised you didn't recognise the reference since you used it on 121 Centre where the Urban75 article is quoted in the Aanarchist Cookbook reference, so we could just switch to that to keep everyone happy
• Mule (newspaper) is a local independent newspaper, seems fine to me as well

Mujinga (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Do or Die has no editorial standing and with no authorial credits. Are you holding that it is reliable for the statements/facts for which it is currently cited?
• What is Smile magazine? Without more details, I can't assess its credibility.
• When a reliable, secondary source chooses to reference a primary source, it doesn't mean that the latter is universally reliable but that in a single instance, the secondary source author has used their discretion to permit a fact. That one secondary source has cited Urban75 does not make the site trustworthy for us to cite directly.
• re: Mule, being a newspaper doesn't confer reliability. It's a volunteer production—what is its quality? Do they fact-check?

czar 14:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: so, as i said before elsewhere in response to you, if you want to go to WP:RSN, please do