Talk:Poundbury
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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)
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)
- 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)
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.
- Start-Class England-related articles
- Low-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- Start-Class UK geography articles
- Low-importance UK geography articles
- Unassessed Urban studies and planning articles
- Unknown-importance Urban studies and planning articles
- Unassessed Architecture articles
- Unknown-importance Architecture articles
- Start-Class WikiProject Cities articles
- All WikiProject Cities pages
- Start-Class Dorset articles
- Mid-importance Dorset articles