Talk:Bristol/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Aeronautical history

Does the article need more on Concorde and Filton? The runway extension (for the Brabazon I think)? Nevilley 08:05 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

Arpingstone seems to be our resident expert on Filton. Obviously I wouldn't presume to speak for him, but you could drop a note on his talk in case he's not watching this page. --rbrwr (who is within sight of the Filton runway at the moment).

I have wroted to him. Watch this space. :) Nevilley

PS I had a friend in Thornbury. He was an ex-policeman and had been on duty at Filton the day the first Concorde flight from there took off. He said it was quite spectacular when the fence got blown down by the engines! Nevilley

Ok, I'll see what I can find. Very nice article on Bristol, I'm impressed! -- Arpingstone 19:23 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

Done!! -- Arpingstone 20:55 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Cheers! --rbrwr

---

Just a tiny bit more clarification sought:

1. The "BAC" in the bit about Concorde is the same thing as the "Bristol Aeroplane Company" mentioned lower down - is that right?
2. Do I remember right about the massive runway extension being for the Brabazon? Or did I make that up? What [I think] I'm on about is the effect you can see here where the extension clearly zaps the road and (istr) a village or hamlet or something was lost - is that right? Anyone help?? :) Nevilley 11:24 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to find out the answer to your questions and add the answers to the Bristol article -- Arpingstone 12:27 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

The village was called Charlton, and is mentioned here and here --rbrwr

What BAC means depends on the time you're talking about. In the earlier years it was Bristol Aeroplane Company and later, by strange chance, it was British Aircraft Corporation. So when BAC is used in an article which one is meant should be put somewhere.

When I've time I'll add about the loss of Charlton to the Bristol article. -- Arpingstone 09:02 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

The date by the picture of concorde is wrong, but i cant see where to edit it. It should read 1969 can someone change this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.73.220.209 (talk • contribs) --rbrwr^±.

The caption is correct: Concorde 216 (the aircraft in question) did first fly in 1979 [1]. You're thinking of the prototype 002, which was the first British Concorde flight, and was in 1969. The first flight of any Concorde, also in 1969, was from Toulouse. --rbrwr^± 09:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Size in Middle Ages

Highly questionable whether Bristol was third largest City in Middle Ages, Norwich is invariably credited as being England's second City until circa 1700 THEN when Sea-trade shifted from the Continent to North Atlantic Bristol rose in stature. Norwikian 11:12, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

According to Peter Aughton, Bristol: A People's History (2000), the 1377 poll tax returns (persons over 14 years) were: London 23314, York 7248, Bristol 6345, Coventry 4817, Norwich 3952, Lincoln 3412. Bristol did not join in the Peasants' Revolt against the poll tax in 1381, so maybe there was under-reporting in the other towns and cities but not in Bristol. Nevertheless, that seems to be the source of the claim. --rbrwrˆ 15:55, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Geography

I diagree that rainfall in Bristol is "similar to the national average". The previous two sentences refer to "cities" rather than national average, and so should the third. Huge swathes of the UK are scotland and welsh hills, so the "national average" for rainfall is very much wetter than most urban areas. Bristol is one of the wettest urban areas in England...but I cant find a reference right now!... Also, under prevailing W/SW winds Bristol is only sheltered by the very edge of the Mendips - hence the rain Fig 23:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Areas

Request for opinions: I propose areas and towns be changed to give: "Wards" instead of areas, and "towns". Also, the current article is somewhat inaccurate - Catbrain is not in Bristol, but in South Gloucestershire. Such errors would also be corrected. Nick04 18:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Feel free. I note that the 'areas and towns' section also lists Filton. I think it is in fact listing places in the Bristol conurbation, not just the places in the legal city of Bristol. Morwen - Talk 18:57, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, a list of wards would be just that - wards. They don't necessarily correspond to the areas that people talk about in real life. "Cabot", for example, is a completely synthetic ward; there's not much that can be said about it as a community. On the other hand "real" places like Shirehampton and St Paul's would be off the list. --rbrwrˆ 20:22, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK - How about putting a list of wards under the "Local Government" heading, matching up each ward with its two councillors, and removing the errors from Areas and Towns (being Catbrain, Filton, and Patchway - all of which are in South Gloucestershire), as well as expanding the section to include other areas (Broadmead, Montpelier etc). Thus, wards are associated with government, and areas and towns are separate. Nick04 09:58, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That sounds promising. Another source of "areas and towns" that occurred to me would be the areas which are identified on well-known maps of Bristol (the A-Z and the OS 1:50k spring to mind). As the article as a whole deals with some things that are outside the city limits but belong to Bristol from a global perspective (i.e. BAC/Concorde at Filton) we should probably have a (separate) list of adjoining suburbs and towns alongside it. Does that sound like a good idea? --rbrwrˆ 10:44, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Two lists of Bristol placenames:

Hotwells -- Clifton -- Sneyd Park -- Stoke Bishop -- Sea Mills -- Shirehampton -- Avonmouth -- Lawrence Weston -- Blaise Hamlet -- Henbury -- Combe Dingle -- Westbury on Trym -- Brentry -- Southmead -- Eastfield -- Henleaze -- Golden Hill -- Westbury Park -- Redland -- Cotham -- Bishopston -- Horfield -- Lockleaze -- Ashley Down -- Montpelier -- Eastville -- Stapleton -- Ridgeway -- Broomhill -- Fishponds -- Hillfields -- Clay Hill -- Speedwell -- Two Mile Hill -- Whitehall -- Easton -- Barton Hill -- Netham -- St George -- St Anne's Park -- Broom Hill -- Brislington -- Arno's Vale -- Knowle -- Hengrove -- Filwood Park -- Hartcliffe -- Windmill Hill -- Lower Knowle -- Novers Park -- Headley Park -- Bishopsworth -- Highridge -- Bedminster Down -- Ashton Vale -- Bower Ashton -- Ashton Gate -- Bedminster --

Clifton -- Sea Mills -- Shirehampton -- Avonmouth -- Lawrence Weston -- Coombe Dingle -- Henbury -- Westbury on Trym -- Stapleton -- Fishponds -- Brislington -- Knowle -- Bedminster (...plus...) Canon's Marsh -- Hotwells -- Clifton Wood -- Victoia Park -- Sneyd Park -- Stoke Bishop -- Blaise Hamlet -- Botany Bay -- Brentry -- Southmead -- Eastfield -- Henleaze -- Golden Hill -- Westbury Park -- Redland -- Cotham -- Kingsdown -- Bishopston -- Horfield -- Lockleaze -- Ashley Down -- St Andrews -- Montpelier -- Baptist Mills -- St Paul's -- Broadmead -- Eastville -- Upper Eastville -- Ridgeway -- Broomhill -- Hillfields -- Mayfield Park -- Chester Park -- Clay Hill -- Rose Green -- Crofts End -- Speedwell -- Two Mile Hill -- Burchells Green -- Whiteway -- Whitehall -- Redfield -- Moorfields -- Upper Easton -- Russell Town -- Newtown -- Barton Hill -- The Dings -- St Philip's Marsh -- Netham -- Pile Marsh -- St George -- Crew's Holes -- White's Hill -- Conham -- St Anne's Park -- St Anne's -- Broom Hill -- Kensington Hill -- Kensington Park -- Arno's Vale -- Totterdown -- Upper Knowle -- Stockwood -- Hengrove -- Knowle Park -- Filwood Park -- Inn's Court -- Hartcliffe -- Windmill Hill -- Lower Knowle -- Headley Park -- Bishopsworth -- Withywood -- Highridge -- Bedminster Down -- Ashton Vale -- Bower Ashton -- Ashton Gate

and these are the Council wards:

Ashley -- Avonmouth -- Bedminster -- Bishopston -- Bishopsworth -- Brislington East/West -- Cabot -- Clifton/Clifton East -- Cotham -- Easton -- Eastville -- Filwood -- Frome Vale -- Hartcliffe -- Henbury -- Hengrove -- Henleaze -- Hillfields -- Horfield -- Kingsweston -- Knowle -- Lawrence Hill -- Lockleaze -- Redland -- Southmead -- Southville -- St. George East/West -- Stockwood -- Stoke Bishop -- Westbury-on-Trym -- Whitchurch Park -- Windmill Hill

Any ideas? --rbrwrˆ 21:01, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wards - How about a layout such as this:

• Ashely - Councillors: Shirley Marshall (Liberal Democrat), Dudley Paul Saward (Labour Party)

I guess it would be easiest to get the wards done, and then try and get a area list together. Any suggestions for ward layout? Nick04 17:42, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, except that the links should be to Liberal Democrat and Labour Party. --rbrwrˆ 21:33, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cabot - I used to live in Cabot ward in the early 80s and also viewed it as illogical (though not synthetic) - but older hands pointed out that it was the old 'Docks' ward, and up until the 50s/60s rundown of the City Docks would indeed have had a character and cohenrence all of its own.Linuxlad 17:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A place called "Chesterfield Park" has found its way into the list of "Areas and Towns". I can't find any evidence of its existence, though there is a "Chester Park" on the A-Z map, between Fishponds and Kingswood, just inside the city boundary. Can anybody confirm or deny the existence of Chesterfield Park in Bristol? --rbrwr^± 14:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Cabot Tower and other images

Maybe we should add this photo

File:Cabottwrs01.jpg

Edward 13:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Go right ahead if you want. It's an old one of mine from a great nostalgia pilgrimage to Bristol a year or two ago. It's a pity the tower is so small but it was hacked out from a MUCH larger 35mm pic. Pending anything better of the CT it's not bad. One day perhaps we can get a better one... I think I had trouble getting a good angle on it, was somewhere down near the Central Library or somewhere istr and there was buildings in the way everywhere so this was probably between two pubs and a telegraph pole or something ... :) --Nevilley 14:35, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I will get a better one, hopefully within the next two weeks. But it's not as if the article is short of pictures at the moment. I say leave it out. ---rbrwrˆ

I went on a long walk yesterday photographing various parts of Clifton and Bristol for Wikipedia purposes. They're at Fujilab just now (I'm so old-fashioned) but hopefully I should have a much better shot of the Cabot Tower among other things uploaded within a few days. --rbrwrˆ 19:38, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have various photos of the like on my site (Cabot Tower, Brandon Hill) that are GFDLd. --Steinsky 18:56, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cabot Tower

As promised, a new picture of the tower, now in use on John Cabot. Unfortunately I didn't get a good shot of the Cabot statue outside the Arnolfini - he was in the shade of the trees and came out too dark. Various other Bristol-related articles have new illustrations, too. --rbrwrˆ 17:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These are excellent! --138.37.188.109 10:37, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Transport

Is the portishead railway open all the way? I've noticed the line in use as far as portbury dock, but along the NCN's C33 from Pill to Portishead the railway appears to be totally overgrown still. --Steinsky 15:04, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think you may be right. As it's for freight only at the moment, it only needs to go as far as the docks at Portbury, not into Portishead station. --rbrwrˆ 15:27, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bristol collaboration / featured article attempt

If anybody else is interested, we're currently discussing a collaboration on a local article, probably Bristol Harbour, with the possibility of submitting as consideration for featured article. The discussion is at Talk:Bristol Harbour. --Joe D 23:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Panorama

I contributed a vertically stretched panorama initially. This was deliberate. In my opinion a streched panorama is easier to view on a web browser than an undistorted version that ends up looking like a very long and thin bar. Vertical streching does not really make a picture of buildings look that much worse. It looks a bit like photo taken with a wide angle lens. What is your opinion? Klafubra 11:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Klafubra, I'm very surprised you would find a highly distorted pic acceptable on WP and it certainly isn't the effect a wide-angle lens gives. There's nothing wrong with a long thin bar on the page because it's only a thumbnail and the reader (if interested) will immediately enlarge it. Thank you for leaving my corrected pic in the article. In any case, de-stretching it in Photoshop took me only about ten minutes including pulling it off WP , correcting it with EDIT TRANSFORM SCALE and then reuploading it. (PS New contributions to Talk go at the bottom of the page so I've moved yours to here) Best Wishes,Adrian Pingstone 12:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IMO, the unstretched version is far nicer. Joe D (t) 23:23, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Daniel Li?

Google searches: "daniel li" dj bristol; "underground clownstep". I am suspicious. --rbrwr^± 23:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think there may be grounds to be more than just suspicious! --Joe D (t) 06:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Drugs problems

While the material was POV and clearly didn't belong in the introductory section, I was aware that Bristol's drug problem was notable before I lived there or had any intrest in the city, so it's probabaly notable enough for a one or two sentence mention somewhere in the page. --Joe D (t) 06:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate history article

Just out of interest why is there a History of Bristol article which has exactly the same content as the history section on the main page?. Was someone planning to expand it or something, or is it just an unnecesary duplication. G-Man 19:22, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The history section on the main page was very long so I moved it to a sub-page, we just haven't got 'round to reducing it to a more concise summary yet though (same goes for most of the other UK counties pages). I think the history page has already been expanded a little. --Joe D (t) 20:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

John Farey???

I think perhaps a hoax may have slipped by us all - under "famous people":

• "John Farey is one of the most reknowned travellers, famous in Bristol. In the past, he has voyaged to Antarctica, and has attempted the discovery of ancient Atlantis. In his spare time he also fought in the Cuban Revolutionary War. He is now retired living in Bishopston, Bristol. Enjoying a life writing children's fiction, and has already had 3 books published."

I've removed the entry. Nick04 22:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Industrial museum - free?

I notice that the Industrial Museum has a little red museum icon, implying it is not free. Is this a recent change?. I'm pretty sure it was free when I visited last year. -- Chris j wood 00:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I visited it in early August last year, and although I'm not certain, I don't think I paid for it. The webpage about it on the Bristol City website [2] doesn't mention anything about an entrance cost, but the generic musuems page states "There is free entry to the six museums and historic sites spread across the city of Bristol." [3]

AboutBritain.com [4], 24hourmuseum.org [5] and Aeroflight [6], (found on page 1 of a google search for Bristol Industrial Musuem) all also say its free (none of the others gave pricing information).

So, I'd say that its free and the icon needs changing – which I've done. Thryduulf 01:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was definitely free the last time I went in, which was less than five weeks ago. --rbrwr^± 07:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Area/population

I just backed out 81.129.117.239's changes, which turned the "population" table cell to gibberish and also more than doubled Bristol's area. I'm not sure what was intended. --rbrwr^± 19:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Propose splitting industry

I'm not happy with having a Bristol Cars section (nowhere near notable enough for a whole section on the front page IMO). I propose we split a new page, Industry in Bristol, Industry of Bristol or possibly Economy of Bristol, which will have info on the cars and aeronautics with the option to expand into any other notable industry. We can then turn the cars and aeronautics section on the main page into a summary industry section. Any comments or objections before I go ahead? Joe D (t) 17:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

-- Good idea Joe D Nigelpm 15:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bristol "L"

I thought the "l" only went on words which were spelt with an "a" at the end: Americal, Canadal, etc. Can anyone show proof of other "l" words? --DannyWilde 02:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

the change from Brycgstow to Bristol (rather than Bristow) is the most famous (historical) example.--Philbarker 16:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Are there any others? I've heard "Americal", "ideal" and "Canadal" many times, but I don't remember hearing the "l" after any words not spelt with a final "a". One of Daniel Jones's books discusses the Bristol L and gives a different explanation. Incidentally I put a request for verification of the above claim on the page itself, but it was removed in a later edit. --DannyWilde 06:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Places of interest

What ever happened to the places of interest section? It was removed on 1 March by 86.136.40.144, but I history does not say why, and there is no sign of where it went to.

I think this section should be re-instated, any opinions?

--Kylet 21:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, its certainly encyclopaedic imho. Thryduulf 21:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was just vandalism. Revert it. --rbrwr^± 07:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Have reverted it back in! Nigelpm 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I have never done anything with citations before, and am not sure of the formatting required. One request for citation in the article is for the flower of Bristol - there are many other websites with references to the Maltese Cross, or nonesuch. A quick search on Google Books finds a mention in a flora book, but the content is restricted so I cannot be sure.

--Kylet 11:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The request was made by someone who has a thing against county flowers, has been deleting all references to them, and trying to have the article on them deleted. A citation is unnecessary; there's nothing controversial to be established, and the two articles referred to are perfectly afequate. Don't worry about it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. All I request is that references to the "county flowers" neologism is put in the correct context, otherwise it is highly misleading. Please read WP:CITE - there you will see, very clearly, that you cannot use internal links as a substitute for proper external references. You clearly have a thing about "county flowers" yourself, so don't try to play the "NPOV" card - it just won't wash.--Mais oui! 22:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In the recent article for deletion discussion, while there was a consensus in favour of keeping the county flowers (I was strongly opposed), there was also several calls for the recent, unofficial origins of the county flowers to be noted in articles where they are mentioned. I am more concerned that the county flower mentions remain at the moment in the lead section of county articles. Can someone explain to be why is this neologistic product of a recent publicity campaign should be in the lead section? Bwithh 23:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I see another editor has already moved the county flower reference to a more appropriate place. good. Bwithh 23:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

1. It isn't a neologism; its use has been very much expanded by the campaign.
2. I'm not attached to the county-flower concept; I'm responding to the aggressive and disruptive tactics of Bwithh and Mais oui! in their attempts to remove it from Wikipedia as far as they can.
3. I've raised this campaign at the Administrators' Noticeboard, as it seems a clear case of WP:POINT. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject

I made a little Bristol WikiProject for encouraging improvement of Bristol related articles, if anybody's interested in joining in... Joe D (t) 15:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes i'd be interested in joining in, it would be great to see Bristol as a FA. - Suicidalhamster 17:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

Dear all, I have today proposed that the Greater Bristol article be merged into this one. My reasons are that I don't feel the Greater Bristol piece adds anything that shouldn't be covered in the Bristol article. The Bristol article already makes clear that Bristol is a unitary authority, a ceremonial county, a city and a large urban area so, while I would envisage using the population data, I don't see that having a separate article on Greater Bristol is worthwhile. Clearly, Greater London and Greater Manchester are formal entities in their own right and deserve separate articles, but I don't believe the same is true of Greater Bristol. Thoughts anyone. Cheers. Duncshine 11:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Greater Bristol anyway. The County of Avon was split into one city and County ("City and County of Bristol") and three unitary authorities ("North Somerset", "Bath and North East Somerset" and "South Gloucestershire"). Greater (city) usually refers to the most of the city, excluding the outskirts. In the case of Bristol, what is realistically the outskirts of the city (for example, Hanham, Kingswood or Little Stoke) are not officially part of Bristol (except in the sense of the posttown) anyway. Nickg1980

Are you going to go through all the conurbations in List of conurbations in the United Kingdom doing the same? Fig 10:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Duncshine makes it pretty clear that some of those do deserve seperate articles; not all the others have one. Greater Bristol is the only one of the three border line cases on that page that has an article to itself. I'm inclined to agree that the that the Greater Bristol article doesn't have enough in it to merit a seperate article. --Philbarker 10:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Duncshine. Best to have a single article which describes the different definitions of Bristol, and their differing areas and populations. -- Chris j wood 17:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Fig's point above. I think that every article should be constantly reexamined to see whether it merits an article or not. The conurbations listed are a good case. I know the Bristol area well so felt it was reasonable for me to make a suggestion. Can't promise I'll have time to look at all the others but, as long as each is judged on its own merits, I think checking to see whether each conurbation deserves its own article is reasonable. Duncshine 12:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, what ever you decide for GB perhaps you should also do for Greater Nottingham, a very similar size of conurbation. Bob aka Linuxlad 16:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Greater Bristol is a borderline conurbation, but Greater Nottingham is a well accepted entity --Steve 23:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there is probably a larger point about conurbations. I do feel each one should be judged on its own merits. I am certainly not against 'Greater ---' articles in principle. I just don't feel Greater Bristol merits one. I don't know enough about Nottingham, but it may be worth someone putting a merger tag on there too just to see what the consensus is. There is certainly no reason why the consensus should be the same in both cases. Duncshine 09:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: photo contests

Bristol is a fantastic city to photograph, and there are several Wikipedians, and loads of non-Wikipedian photographers in Bristol. This is a proposal to use the Bristol Wikiproject to improve the already high-quality collection of Bristol photos and give all us Bristolian photographers some fun challenges. The proposal is to set up a series of photo contests, where we pick a different subject (either a specific article that needs illustrating, or a specific shot that we currently have a suboptimal image of) and give e.g. four weeks for people to shoot their entry followed by a week of peer review and voting for the best (several contests can overlap so there is always one in the voting stage). As far as I know no other Wikiprojects (yet) have anything similar to this proposal. I think it would be fun and good for Wikipedia, what do you think? How many people would be interested in taking part? I'm cross-posting this to flickr, if you know of anybody/group else who might be interested, please cross-post. Joe D (t) 03:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (ps: Since I'm out of the country until Aug 9 I don't plan on getting it running right away.)

Please posts replies at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bristol

FAC

If I put this put this on WP:FAC would any locals have any objections? Joe D (t) 12:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Population growth in the 19th century

Can anybody provide a reference for the statement regarding population in the 19th century. I'm googling "Bristol population growth 1801 1901" and not getting much yet. I'm worried that since the county was expanded in 1835 the comparison won't be legitimate, and I'm hoping the person who added the statement has a source that takes in to account the boundary changes. Joe D (t) 23:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The Riots?

There seems to be nothing on the riots in the 80s. These have had a huge effect on St Pauls and the police, also leading to the St Pauls carnival (any mention?)

There is an article, St Pauls riot, on the topic. It has a section on the St Pauls, Bristol article and a very brief mention on the History of Bristol article. Perhaps the mention on the history article could be expanded, and a single sentence mentioned in the history section of this page, with link to the article. Perhaps there could also be a mention somewhere in the Politics of Bristol article, which certainly needs to be expanded with a section on non-adminitrative politics (e.g. campaigning, etc). Joe D (t) 14:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Rhyming slang.

I was bold :) Removed

The slang term "Bristols", meaning breasts, was popularised in the Carry On series of films - "Bristol City" is Cockney rhyming slang for "titty".

Because it's covered in the disam page, and not really relevant ot the article about the city. Any objections? --verbatim 15:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions either way. It has been added and removed several times. I don't think it's completely irrelevant though. Joe D (t) 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wales

• "is a city, unitary authority and ceremonial county in Wales," in WALES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.133.78 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. It was vandalism which has now been reverted. --TimTay (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.133.78 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

External links

• Panoramic photographs of Bristol

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I would like to add an EL but before doing so to consult editors of the EL section of the Bristol wikipedia page. Using the criteria of high quality, and comprehensiveness Directory of 6,500 Bristol websites and clearly a 'directory of websites or organizations' I think it justifies inclusion. However I have an interest in that website. Would any editor support its inclusion ? Cattybristol (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not support or encourage advertising. Probably, the requirements of WP:Spam would rule out this link. Its effectively a "yellow pages" type site and it includes paid adverts down the right hand side.Pyrotec (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As above, I can't see a valid reason for inclusion. It certainly looks and feels like spam and fails WP:EL on numerous counts. The 'directory of websites or organizations' potential reason for inclusion covers things like a list of charities link on the charity article, not a directory promoting a random collection of businesses. Nuttah (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I also do not agree that that site should be listed in EL. Others have listed the guidelines and policies which this fails. Thanks for asking and using the talk page to do so. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks for feedback. I'd like to respond on two counts. 1. Nuttah incorrectly describes the directory as 'a random collection of businesses' meanwhile it is categorised (300+) and nearly half of all the listings are not businesses but links to local political groups, sports clubs and the like. 2. Pyrotec's 'feels like spam' assertion is unfair. My sense is that the directory is, within Bristol, quite unique (size, scope, is not supported by Council, HP, Beeb etc) and gives interested Wikipedia users an enormous amount of information about 'online' Bristol. I see that DMOZ has 1,765 links in Regional Bristol and is about a quarter of the directory in question. DigitalBristol.org is smaller than Dmoz. The advertising bit is wide of the mark - I'm happy to explain about the 'right hand edge (of search results)' but I don't think its the main criticism. Cheers. Cattybristol (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of the right hand side is news from BBC Bristol and below that is a section headed "adds by Goggle". What that means, is that anyone, say clicking on "User Car search", etc, generates advertising revenue that is paid to Google (see [7]). If you go to Bristol online's home page there is a link to their terms and conditions - [8]. Bristol on line is WP:SPAM.Pyrotec (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Pyrotec, I don't want to aggravate and ultimately will accept editor's view. I understand the rules state 'Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is [ie such an EL] considered to be spam.' AFIAK the fact that this website carries non-specific ads does not make it spam. I'm asking you guys to look at the website on its merits ie as something of interest and as an information source more substantial than whats currently included. If you think it doesn't have merit in these respects that's fine.Cattybristol (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The site under discussion does provide a large collection of categorised links, however I agree with Pyrotec, Nuttah and Jezhotwells that it would not be appropriate to add it as an external link as I feel it wouldn't add anything to the article and the only purpose seems to be promoting the site, therefore it would be considered WP:SPAM. However I would like to thank you for raising it on the talk page first and constructive discussion.— Rod ^talk 13:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

There is a list carved into a frieze in the reception room next to the council chamber of the Council House on College Green. You can access this list online here: Mayors of Bristol since 1216 Jezhotwells (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

35 namesakes

Someone might like to add to the text mention of Bristol's 35 namesakes. "London, which has spread to 46 settlements on six continents, is second on the list, followed by Oxford (41 on three continents) and Manchester (36 on two continents). Bristol is fifth, equal to Wellington, with 35." (Jack Malvern. Richmond, in Surrey, is the most widely copied British place name worldwide, timesonline 2008-12-29. The original byline for the article in The Times of the same day was "The 55 corners of foreign fields that will be for ever ... Richmond" (page 9). Cites The Times Universal Atlas of the World.) PBS (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, added a sentence to the lede. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

biz/ed as a source for Cameron ballonns being largest manufacturer of Hot Air balloons

I am wondering why User:TimTay reverted the citation from biz/ed supporting the assertion in the article that Cameron Balloons is the world's largest manufacturer of hot-air balloons. The link was to http://www.bized.co.uk/virtual/cb/cameron/cameron1.htm. The about us page of the biz/ed website at http://www.bized.co.uk/homeinfo/aboutus.htm provides a lot of verifiable information that biz/ed is a reliable source. Perhaps User:TimTay missed that? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, having read the about us I concede that it may well be a reliable source. However, some of their content is produced in close cooperation with the companies being studied, Cameron Balloon's virtual factory in this case which could not be produced without Cameron's cooperation. I this case I suspect that the the claim to be the largest manufacturer in the world is the company's own, just reprinted by Bized. I would much prefer to see a citation about Cameron's sales figures from a recognised aviation industry source such as Jane's Information Group, or Aviation Week. As things stand I think the current statement about Cameron in the article is OK and would dispute the need for a peacock claim such as "world's-largest". If you want a real statistic then use the one about the number of Cameron aircraft registered in the UK, from the CAA register. --TimTay (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is perhaps best to leave things as they are now. I inserted the citation as a response to a citation needed tag, but as you say peacock claims are probably best left out. Readers can follow the wiki link to the Cameroon Balloons page. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)