Jump to content

Talk:Poundbury

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 210.48.92.101 (talk) at 03:58, 28 July 2009 (→‎Criticism: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

YouTube

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 18:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding

The bold font under the gallery images, is it necessary? Wikipedia should not be to bold, however it looks pretty neat! any other opinions? FM talk to me | show contributions ]  17:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is wrong and unnecessary to use it here. The WP:MOS only mentions bold face for the page title in first sentence. For the sake of uniformity, style should be left to the style sheet (per WP:MOSCOLOR), or perhaps the gallery template. I will therefore delete it. Derek Andrews (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The criticism of the plan for not using local materials is in fact not part of the plan, but should be a separate section headed Criticism that then voices critical or opposing views. Further, such comments should be documented as substantial criticism rather than a Wikipedia member voicing their opinion. There may be perfectly good reasons why materials were sourced other than locally, especially in the context of time. As the sustainability movement has grown, recently and rapidly, its values have evolved as well. These sorts of opinion needs to be set out in some proper external forum - not Wikipedia, and then only if it generates enough traction to merit documentation in an encyclopaedia, cite it here.

I put this as a talking point rather than change it, as I don't have the time to log in, do the proper research and make the changes right now.

This comment is released into the public domain, and should stand on its own merits.