Talk:Beverley: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:00, 31 March 2008

UK geography Start‑class Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal 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.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hanseatic League Start‑class (defunct)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hanseatic League, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Hanseatic LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueTemplate:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueHanseatic League articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Yorkshire Start‑class High‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Beverley is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

lion?

since when does beverley have a lion...

Never, as far as I can tell. Moved to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Blisco 20:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BEVERLEY ACTUALLY DOES HAVE A LION! THEY KEEP IT NEAR THE MEMORIAL HALL HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO BEVERLEY

Population

I have reverted the recent change to the population in the infobox as the change was out of alignment with the text. Unfortunately I cannot locate a reference for either the 29,210 or 29,110 figure. Can anyone provide a reference for either of these figures? Keith D (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a direct link to the 29,110 figure. Unfortunately the "town" boundaries of almost all market towns in England have not been redrawn since before local government reorganisation in the 1970s. Before this town boundaries were extended periodically to take account of new building but since town councils lost most of their functions to the new district authorities nobody has bothered to redraw the boundaries.

For this reason National Statistics prefers the urban area definition for comparative purposes - ie the contiguous built-up area where the gap between buildings does not exceed 50 metres. Otherwise most of the housing built in the past 30-plus years gets excluded because technically it is situated in adjacent parishes. Jameswilson (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox change

Can I ask why the infobox has been changed as according to WP:CITIES I think we should be using the original one. Can someone please explain how Beverley's use of settlement in preference to UK place fits in with the following - "All settlements of the United Kingdom (that are not coterminous with a local government district) are to use the Template:Infobox UK place, though some very rare exceptions exist. For those that are coterminous with a local government district (which are usually large cities / unitary districts or equivalent—such as Liverpool, Leicester, and Bristol), please use Template:Infobox settlement." Keith D (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per explained to you on your talk in regards to the arms and other information. WP:CITIES is just a project page, not a policy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the infobox as per WP:UKCITIES as there has been extensive discussion on the use of infoboxes in UK place articles there, see also the archives. Please discuss any changes required to WP:UKCITIES about using the settlement infobox there as there is a much wider audience than this article and it has impact on a UK wide basis. Keith D (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your edit, because you've provided no reason as to why REMOVING information from an article is preferable, just to keep a mere infobox inline with the guideline opinion of an editor on a WikiProject which is not even policy. Especially as the only big different between the two is that the current one allows for more information, which is important to the article.- Yorkshirian (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is policy see Wikipedia:Consensus--Ahjet (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The project page clearly marks its specific useage as "project guideline". A guideline is not a policy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, consensus is a policy. Do you have it?--Ahjet (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a newbie, so I'll take pity and kindly put you in the direction of Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines which explains to you the difference between the two. One is the law of Wikipedia (policy), one is merely advisery and is down to the editors choice, hense why Manchester for example has the same infobox which allows arms... a project guideline doesn't even have the status of a general guideline. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy I am emphasizing is that of consensusWikipedia:Consensus.You do not have consensus to use the infobox of your choice in this article. It's nothing to do with guidelines.--Ahjet (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 13:27, 31 March 2008 edit Yorkshirian (talk \| contribs) 12,364 edits →‎Infobox change ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:00, 31 March 2008 edit undo Ahjet (talk \| contribs) 35 edits →‎Infobox change: consensus Next edit →
Line 40:		Line 40:

	::::::::You seem to be a newbie, so I'll take pity and kindly put you in the direction of [[Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines]] which explains to you the difference between the two. One is the law of Wikipedia (policy), one is merely advisery and is down to the editors choice, hense why [[Manchester]] for example has the same infobox which allows arms... a project guideline doesn't even have the status of a general guideline. - [[User:Yorkshirian\|Yorkshirian]] ([[User talk:Yorkshirian\|talk]]) 13:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)		::::::::You seem to be a newbie, so I'll take pity and kindly put you in the direction of [[Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines]] which explains to you the difference between the two. One is the law of Wikipedia (policy), one is merely advisery and is down to the editors choice, hense why [[Manchester]] for example has the same infobox which allows arms... a project guideline doesn't even have the status of a general guideline. - [[User:Yorkshirian\|Yorkshirian]] ([[User talk:Yorkshirian\|talk]]) 13:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

			The policy I am emphasizing is that of '''consensus'''[[Wikipedia:Consensus]].You do not have consensus to use the infobox of your choice in this article. It's nothing to do with guidelines.--[[User:Ahjet\|Ahjet]] ([[User talk:Ahjet\|talk]]) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)