Jump to content

Talk:Bristol: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 51: Line 51:


{{Archive box|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]], [[/Archive 2|Archive 2]]}}
{{Archive box|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]], [[/Archive 2|Archive 2]]}}
== wales ==
* "is a city, unitary authority and ceremonial county in Wales," in WALES?


==External links ==
==External links ==

Revision as of 23:38, 15 November 2008

Former good articleBristol was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 16, 2006Good article nomineeListed
April 30, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 27, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 1, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

wales

  • "is a city, unitary authority and ceremonial county in Wales," in WALES?

I've restored this EL, which has twice now been deleted.

In accordance with WP:ELYES #4, "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" They're interesting panoramic photos of Bristol, a medium which Wikipedia is unlikely to be able to provide itself. If anyone has a real justification for deleting them, please discuss here, where the community of interest can see it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone else's refernece, here's what I wrote in my discussion with Andy on my talk page: Links like that one are usually discouraged to avoid an article acquiring a large collection of links which is not allowed under WP:NOTLINK. If links like that are included, it gives precedent for more links to be added and, well, you can see where I'm going! And as none of them is more or less notable than another, it is better just to have none. That's my two cents. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 20:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Andy on this matter: many of the links like these are useful, providing informative resources that Wikipedia can not do itself. Sure, it can be seen as a precedent for adding more, but usually an editor (or a talk page) can establish that some are more notable or of higher quality, or greater comprehensiveness than others. The Bristol article is hardly neglected -- a lot of people are watching every edit for quality and notability: there is no need to worry about the article getting out of control.
Declaration of conflicts of interest: a link removed alongside Andy's (to http://www.cotch.net/Bristol) was to one of my own pages. I actually got into photography originally with illustrating Wikipedia's UK geography articles in mind, and the pages on Cotch.net were started specifically for this reason (before the Commons was created).
Cheers, Joe D (t) 16:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm happy to admit when I've had an error in judgement :). Your probably right, if it does start getting out of hand, the links can be looked at then. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 10:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors of Bristol

Does anyone know if there is a listing of the past mayors of Bristol somewhere? Thanks in advance. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]