Jump to content

Talk:Butlin's Minehead

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Butlins Minehead)

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article moved. There wasn't a particularly strong consensus for or against the apostrophe, so the status quo (without apostrophe) prevails for now on that issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minehead (holiday camp) → Butlins Minehead — Move to common name --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 13:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be renamed. Given that it is, and always has been, a Butlins camp, I would suggest it be moved to Butlins Minehead per WP:COMMONNAME and its official name. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 12:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • retain There's a bit of history as to why this naming convention was chosen.
  1. It maintains a consistent naming style among all camps. This naming syle was chosen because the first set of articles were of camps that had moved away from the Butlins brand and this is the most WP:NPOV way to record the names despite any name changes.
  2. The site has never been called "Butlins Minehead" and whilst this is a WP:Commonname, I believe it to be equally common to "Minehead Holiday Camp". (I've done Ghits for skegness where this is the case with around 80k hits each.)
  3. WP:RS vary from "Butlins' holiday camp at minehead" if the context is not generally about Butlins to Minehead, Minehead Camp, or Minehead Holiday Camp if it is.
  4. even within Butlins ownership the name has changed 2-3 times again current article name is a wp:Npov Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked Ghits which are being skewed by sites letting Caravans within Butlins. However Google Books Search returns 300+ hits for Minehead "Holiday Camp" and less than 30 for "Butlins Minehead" Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect that's a bad argument and I also fail to see how NPOV comes into it. The site has always been owned by Butlins and its current name is Butlins Minehead. The present name doesn't even acknowledge Butlins' ownership. If your argument about history, rather than current name held, then why is BP not named "British Petroleum", or BT Group named British Telecom (or even the "General Post Office")? A generic name such as the current one is the worst possible solution. If the site has had previous names such as Somerwest World that isn't an argument not to call the article by its current name. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 15:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect, it's current name is not "Butlins Minehead" officially it is the "Minehead Resort" which is owned by a company named "Butlins" - in Hotels we do not call the Ritz Hotel the "Carlton Ritz Hotel" nor the Balmoral Hotel the "Forte Balmoral Hotel" Except in cases where owner has specifically rebranded the hotel name such as the Grand Metropole Hotel where "Grand" was a previous owners name that has become part of the hotel's actual name. "Minehead Resort" has a 5-11 year history with a further 10-11 years as "Somerwest World" and 20+ years previous as "Minehead Holiday Camp" (which is still used by RS up till the present). "Minehead Resort" also can be confused with the "Seaside resort of Minehead" which means the whole town not just the camp. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its common name most definitely is Butlins Minehead. Look at the signs outside. Look at the company's website. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 16:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC
Neither of which is a reliable source for common name purposes, and their website also commonly uses "Minehead Resort" to discuss the location as well as "Butlins Minehead". Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what is the best name & ghits, although erring towards Butlins Minehead on a non-systematic quick search, isn't conclusive. How is the common name decided if not by the signs outside? My only indicator is asking two of my kids who have been there as part of school trips & one said "Minehead Butlins" & the other "Butlins Minehead" (not scientific I know). If people arrived at wikipedia looking for info about the place my thought is that they would unlikely to type in the bit about holiday camp (including the brackets) & would probably use a term that included the company and the location. Therefore I would give a weak support to a move to Butlins Minehead.— Rod talk 21:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked to comment here by User:Stuart.Jamieson, as I have edited some Butlins articles previously (but not this one). Not sure what I'm doing wrong, but my Google books search have arrived at different results: "Minehead holiday camp" returned only 9 hits and Butlins Minehead 29. Next, my Google web search for "Minehead holiday camp" returned only 5,140 hits but for Butlins Minehead 54,000. Google hits aside, I find the second paragraph of WP:COMMONNAME pertinent in this case: "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms … ". Regarding the site's history: the first two words have been "Butlins (or Butlin's) Minehead" for 37 of its 49 years. Intuitively, a reader is unlikely to search for “Minehead (holiday camp)”. The most likely search for the site at Minhead would, in my opinion, begin with Butlins (or Butlin's), followed by either the location, or holiday camp, camp, or resort, followed by the location. The site's current name should also be influential. Obviously we cannot have more than one page title, so, for those reasons, and without further, compelling evidence, I would support a page rename to "Butlins Minehead". Daicaregos (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to throw my hat in support of User:Simple_Bob and User:Daicaregos's comments. To simply back up their point, the first line of the Bognor Regis article (which conveniently follows this terrible naming structure which gives no reference to the Butlins brand) is "Bognor Regis is a seaside resort town in West Sussex, on the south coast of England." quite clearly showing that the article is being confused with the actual town of Bognor Regis. My changes on that articles name have been refused by User:Stuart.Jamieson, as have my changes on the Skegness resort page, which for some reason is titled "Ingoldmells (holiday camp)". User:Stuart.Jamieson has too frequently mentioned a "consensus" that's been reached on terminology and on the naming scheme over on talk:Butlins however all I see on that page is him making that decision himself and arguing with Butlins itself. User:wearebutlins didn't/doesn't have a "conflict of interest", they just (as we all do in this conversation) want to make better the resources available on these pages. That's my two pence, anyway Timtastik (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, whilst not strictly relevant to this particular discussion, the use of the terminology 'Resort' when referring to the site is perhaps justified by the fact that these Wikipedia articles are about what the site is now. Whilst each article should have a history section, it should not defer from the fact that the sites are no longer "Holiday Camps". The sites have been renamed "Resorts" not as a marketing ploy but to demonstrate that the accommodation and facilities have been greatly improved over the past 10 or so years, thus taking them from "Camp" to "Resort". They are truly "Resorts", not camps. Even the page Holiday camp opens with "Holiday camp, in Britain, generally refers to a resort...". The argument of calling them camps because it's what they're "most commonly known as" is the same as arguing that Television should be "Telly" or similar, and so on... Once again, that's my two pence. 03:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Timtastik, There is no requirement that any Brand be recognised in article titles perhaps you mistake wikipedia for a Butlins holiday brochure which we are not. As I've said before consensus was reached on a naming convention after inappropriate renames of one of the earliest camp articles and that consensus has been adhered to as the other camp articles have been written. I have no problems with a change of convention but asked you to debate the change first because a larger RfC is required particularly on camps such as Mosney, Ayr, Pwhelli and Barry where the names are more controversial. You declined to start that debate, Simple Bob has and the debate is headed in a particular direction - I have no problems with the outcome of this debate being extended to all other camps except the four above where further debate is required. Yes I argued with wearebutlins - because despite the word resort already being used in the article they attempted to change it even in historical contexts which is exactly the kind of behaviour that Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Policy is designed to prevent. Ultimately in that discussion I felt the changes should have gone slightly further because some historical contexts still retained the use of resort where camp was more appropriate but again I abided by the consensus summed up by CharlesDrake that the status quo had been reached.
Wikipedia is based on what reliable secondary sources say about things - not what the subject of the article says about themself as we are not an advertising service. The overwhelming majority of reliable secondary sources use camp and camp is far more common name than resort when connected with Butlins despite any attempts made by Butlins Ltd to convince people otherwise. Resort should only be used in a limited modern context. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of this article, the naming scheme implies two things: a) this is an article about something called Minehead. b) this something, called Minehead is a "Holiday camp". Unfortunately, both of these facts are simply incorrect. This article is about a Holiday camp called either "Butlins Minehead" or "Butlins Resort Minehead", which is not a "Holiday Camp" but a "Holiday Resort". Referring to the Resort as a 'Resort' does not promote Butlins Ltd. in any way, nor does actually including Butlins in the title of the article. It's apparent to me that you are still simply cherry picking lines of Wikipedia Guidance to support your flailing argument. You continue to reference a consensus that was made, however this consensus, as far as I can see, came from yourself and one other person at most. As I see it, there are two people now arguing against you, however you refuse to accept that the article should be titled 'Butlins Minehead', for example. I can fully understand that you feel a sense of protectiveness toward these pages, having invested a lot of your time and effort into creating and organising them, however I must stress that you cannot simply assume authority over these. My argument on naming is particularly felt toward the Skegness resort, which (for reasons I can't begin to imagine) is called "Ingoldmells (Holiday Camp)". In reality, the Skegness Resort has never once been known as that, nor is it *actually* in Ingoldmells. It's as much in Ingoldmells as it is in Skegness, in that, it's not. If you want historic value, which is what you continue to preach about, you would include the name in the article title, so that more people can actually find, access and contribute toward the article. By using the terminology of "Resort" with regards to closed resorts, it's not inaccurate, because a "Holiday Camp", an unofficial term might I add, is a *type* of Resort. Through that logic, calling them a resort is not actually incorrect, however I have no argument against them being called "Camps" if you really insist. There are two people here who think that the article should be named "Butlins *resort*" and one person who disagrees, so in that respect, I would say that we have the majority in this article. Whilst there is no way to define this, I strongly disagree that by using the terms "Resort" or "Butlins" in the article's title makes it in any way a Butlins Holiday Brochure. Once again though, I've contributed to this discussion and I'm not going to spend my time arguing it when simply, as self-declared and hence un-elected dictator of this article, you're never going to let it be changed because you simply don't agree. That's how I see it. All the best, Ryan (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having read all the above, I support a move to Butlin's Minehead. The current title is simply wrong - Minehead is not a holiday camp. But why has no-one suggested Minehead holiday camp? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Timtastic, please assume good faith. It is not reasonable to call a well established and responsible editor an "un-elected dictator. If there is a consensus for change it will be changed. Regarding User:Wearebutlins that account was used by Butlins management to firstly try to delete the former closed camps from the Butlins article, then to change every instance of the word camp to resort, even for the old camps that never were called resorts. They inherently have a conflict of interest and their past behaviour has hardened attitudes against the company. I would support "Butlin's Minehead", with an apostrophe (see previous section), as that has predominated over the company's history.--Charles (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would therefore like to apologise if that particular comment did cause any offence, but at the same time I do believe that Stuart.Jamieson's initial comments toward me on my talk page that I have since removed were pretty unreasonable too. Apparently I have to prove to be 'someone' to edit a Wiki page, which is news to me... But regardless, I support a move toward Butlins Minehead as the current naming scheme (with the apostrophe) is in itself a marketing scheme for this year and should be disregarded under Wikipedia:Recentism as by the end of 2011 they are very likely to revert to their usual branding and to therefore drop the apostrophe once more. Whilst I agree that it has historical value, I would argue that Butlins is more suitable and typically what people know the company as these days. Furthermore I would also support the the renaming of the Skegness resort to Butlins Skegness and Bognor Regis resort to Butlins Bognor Regis to fall in line with this naming scheme, particularly for the Skegness resort, which as I have repeatedly said has no logic behind its current name. I think that by including Butlins in the article name this removes the need to have the "Holiday Camp" identifier in the title name as this would be evident in the article and there would be no need for such disambiguation. Also, I would like to take this opportunity to suggest that the Current Resorts are separated from past resorts in the Template used on the bottom of these pages to make distinguishing these easier. It is currently rather unclear and cluttered and would make browsing the section far easier for users. In addition, I would like to point out that whilst I was not fully aware of wearebutlins's full editing history I do still feel that their argument about using the terminology of "Holiday Camp" to be incorrect when referring to the current resorts, and I am unsure on whether or not it is suitable for past resorts however that is something for another discussion, I am sure. Regards Ryan (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, and in return I apologise for addressing you in an unacceptable manner in my initial comment, however my point was not that you had to prove to be 'someone' to edit a Wiki page but to point out that Wikipedia policy is that we do not make broad page moves without reaching consensus first, unless you felt you had some authority to do so - I could have templated you with [[Template:Uw-move2]] for making such a move but felt that doing so would be even less civil that what I did post per WP:DTR. There was logic behind the page name of Skegness as Ingoldmells because a large proportion of RS from the 30's and 40's do use the name "Ingoldmells holiday camp" particularly Parliamentary and Local Council sources and Butlin himself identified the camp as being in Ingoldmells - Dacre pg32. There was reason for the choices I made when I named each of these and the appropriate way consider such a move away is to debate it first. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Deliberate out-dent) Well it's good to see some consensus forming although I guess it's up to the big admin in the sky to decide if and when the rename happens. As for Butlins vs Butlin's I don't care either way. Ditto the other articles - my interest lies with just this one article - although I can see why some consistency in naming is desirable. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 17:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency for me is the overriding factor particularly in the naming of sites like Mosney and Barry Island which have already seen attempts to rename to less consistent names. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the current sites being operated by Butlins at present should take on the above proposed naming scheme. I also propose that these should be distinguished from the closed/sold sites in the Category box and these closed/sold sites should be named accordingly to what their current use is (if they've been sold on or transferred to Haven, for example) or to what their final naming term was. I agree that there should be consistency in naming however I feel that the current sites and the past sites should, if deemed necessary, use a different naming scheme. Ryan (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I See this "Final Naming Term" as completely arbitrary; Clacton had a new name for 1 year "Atlas Park" then closed, Barrry Island was "Majestic Barry" for 3 years and "Barry Island Resort" for 6 years, Mosney is currently the "Mosney Detention Centre". The ones that went to Haven correctly use Unique names so there's no need for a hybrid Brand Location convention for them, but the Haven camps don't have much if any notability in reliable secondary sources - the article would fail WP:N if it was solely about them. My favoured change so far is that suggested by User:Ghmyrtle because it represents both a common name and and official former title, but I'm not the Admin who has to close this debate. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that say Butlins X is now Haven Y, we can't have a page on that site called "Butlins X", all in past tense, when the site is currently something. I would have thought that the article would be "Haven Y" and have its History as "Butlins X" in the History section. Forgive me if I'm wrong. If an article for "Haven Y" would fail notability, but an article for "Butlins X" wouldn't, would this not be silly considering that they are both the same actual site? I continue to support the Butlins sans apostrophe (for the current resorts at least) on the basis that Butlins currently do not use the apostrophe anywhere apart from in their somewhat-seasonal logo. The company, the website and everything referring to Butlins has remained without the apostrophe as far as I can see. I would argue that "Butlin's Minehead" would be incorrect in that respect, and whilst it was a former title, I would like to raise the issue that such a title would imply (because of the apostrophe) that Minehead would be a possession of Butlin, if you see what I mean, which would only lead to further confusion. For this reason I continue to support the version without the apostropheRyan (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the problem; Butlin's had a camp called "X Holiday Camp" which was amongst other things commonly called "Butlin's X" when switched to Haven they renamed it "Y" and it's commonly known as "Y" we don't then randomly throw the brand name into that article name as "Haven Y" it is arbitrary to do so unless secondary sources suggest this is the commonest name. Secondly we do regularly retain articles about single periods in a business' history; consider TSB against Lloyds TSB - If only for the sake of consistency these camps could all have articles named "Butlins X" with a close date in the infobox and a redlink to the later name "Y". Some like Barry or Mosney may be able to create an article about "Y" and bluelink instead. Regarding your proposed change to the Navbox, which probably shouldn't be discussed here but on it's talk page or the informal Butlins project as Talk:Butlins but I would oppose any change of that type - any differentation between open/closed/new owner camps and hotels should be made in article space not in a Navbox - the navbox is simply for navigating between related articles and these articles are still related whether or not they still exist and/or are still in Butlins hands. (In the debate on Notable Redcoats, I was advised that wikipedia policy was not differentiate between current/former - hence Category:Former Butlins Redcoats was renamed Category:Butlins Redcoats the same reasoning would apply to Navboxes) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seem to have developed into a discussion about all sorts of places Butlins currently or previously owned/ran. While I can see that some degree of consistency is useful, I came here because of a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Somerset#Butlins Minehead - article name to consider this particular site in Somerset - for which none of the arguments above seem relevant. Therefore Butlins Minehead (which is currently a redirect) still seems the best title for this article to me.— Rod talk 07:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I appreciate the request you followed and Simple Bob's listing here This always was about all sorts of places that Butlins currently or previously owned/ran. Simple Bob's listing came immediately after I reverted the moves of three camps per WP:BRD this should be the discussion for all three of those reverts not just the Minehead one. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest then that the proposed rename banner should be put on each of them as editors with a specific/local interest in each of them may not know of this discussion.— Rod talk 18:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a lot of today trying to see if there was a clean way to get RMbot to do the listing properly - but can't find one. Have instead put relevant {{movenotice}} on all camp articles to heighten awareness. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move away from the present title (definitely) to whatever is its commonest name identifying it as a holiday camp or Butlins site. Other similar articles should follow. --Kotniski (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to oppose the use of Google Book results and Google 'hits' to prove the common usage of a name for a number of reasons. Firstly, Google Book results are showing books about Butlins, and as such these books are more likely than not going to be historical. I would imagine that dated terminology would be used to reference Butlins in these books which would explain why there are a larger number of books for Butlin's Foo as opposed to Butlins Foo. Just throwing that out there... Furthermore I'd like to add that the search term "Butlins Minehead" and not "Butlins" "Minehead" returns 54.5k results on Google, where as "Butlin's Minehead" returns just 6.59k results, which is staggeringly less. "Minehead Holiday Camp" returns just 5.27k results and "Minehead Resort" (which I don't even believe as been suggested but is found in the summary below) brings up 15.7k results. The separation of the search terms outside of the quotation marks significantly changes the results and I believe that these results are a pretty good example of which is the common name at the moment, and Google also suggests Did you mean "Butlins Minehead" on the search results with the apostrophe included. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all parties involved in this discussion over the past week for the way in which this discussion has been handled and has progressed :). Thanks Ryan (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hits are a Policy defined way of selecting the most common name please read WP:COMMONNAME and note

In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals, and a search engine may help to collect this data. When using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia". (Also exclude inauthor:"Books, LLC" when searching Google Books.)[4] Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice in the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test.

Our core policies are notability and verifability and the use of Reliable sources such as books to establish this is essential - if no (or less) sources use this term then it should be depreciated in favor of the best sourced term. I would also add that the reason I separate the terms is because they are can be used with a preposition "Butlins (at) Minehead" or in a different order "The Minehead Butlins Site" - However the majority of sources will already establish the subject to be "Butlins" or "Butlin's" and then simply refer to the camp as "Minehead" (or the reverse establishing the subject to be Minehead and discussing Butlins". Generally the usage in these cases is the same as "Butlins Minehead" and should be considered when making a decision, however your search for "Butlins Minehead" giving 54k returns almost 80% advertising/reseller sites it is nearly impossible to determine how many of those sources are reliable and do not have a conflict of Interest. Google Keyword Analysis shows that Google doesn't differentiate between apostrophe and no apostrophe and that the most common searches are "Butlins in Minehead" Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]

Suggested so far (Google Searches based on Minehead)

For Camps that received new owners/names - Google Book Hits

So, one month later this specific article still hasn't been renamed. How to move it along? --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving it to something, like Butlins Minehead, which at least would surely be better than the present title. If anyone then thinks they can improve on that, they can make a new proposal. --Kotniski (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The RM noticeboard is backlogged with cases like this that are complicated and need an Admin to close. I've already asked at WP:AN but that post has been archived and there's still no sign of the backlog being cleared. My Final preference on the question is either Ghmyrtle's suggestion of "Minehead holiday camp" or Charles' "Butlin's Minehead". Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Butlin's Minehead would be my choice (with or without the apostrophe), seems to be the most recognizable and common name.--Kotniski (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me too.— Rod talk 18:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Butlins Minehead (no apostrophe) is my first choice, but I would be happy with Butlin's Minehead (with the apostrophe) as a second choice. Daicaregos (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Former Butlin camps

[edit]

The discussion above suggests that the camps previous operated by Butlins would also receive batch treatment. I don't think that'll work: each camp that has change hands have received a new name. I came to this discussion because I saw the renaming notice at Penychain (holiday camp); until I read the article I don't even know that it was previously associated with Butlins. It would certainly be inappropriate to rename the article Butlins Pwllheli. I suggest that we take all former Butlins camps out of this "renaming them to Butlins Foo" batch action. --Deryck C. 10:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Batch action is a discussion as to how they should be renamed, not specifically a move to Butlins Foo. Penychain is a good case in point we have Penychain camp prio to Butlins moving in [1] (some sources also use "penychain holiday camp"), we have nearly every iteration of the words "Butlin's", "Holiday", "Camp", "Pwllheli" used as a name for camp then we have "Hafan Y Mor". Officially during the Butlins Era, the camp was named "Pwllheli Holiday Camp". There are far more reliable sources about the Butlins Era of the camp (which last 60 years compare to 10 years) so I feel its WP:Undue and WP:Recentism to focus the articles around current usage and that a neutral usage for all camps should be decided upon. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits

[edit]

I'm starting to get fed up with the repeated additions of unsourced, trivial, unencyclopedic, poorly formatted material to this page by IPs in Cardiff and/or Swansea. Please learn to edit according to the guidelines - here are some, as a start. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Butlin's Minehead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Butlin%27s_Minehead&oldid=1199009900"