Talk:Clovelly

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fisheries and Fishing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Devon Mid‑importance

	Devon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removed a piece of trivia

Today I removed this item from the "notable residents" section:

"Clovelly is in an advert where a woman is seen rolling down the hill and out onto the pier on a trolley: John West Tuna, BMW, John Smith Beer"

Invertzoo (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest?

I rewrote much of the access information yesterday, The article seems to have been edited over time by the tourist centre, the entire section on controversy and questioning the legality had been eroded/destroyed, what replaced it looked very much like it was copied from the Estate website, as well as being entirely false in places it's an example of damaging commercial edits.

--86.170.159.169 (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Access

The Access section is currently duplicated. I have moved the second one here as it has no sources to support it. If suitable sources can be found, perhaps the material could be integrated with the existing section. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Visitor Centre

Despite information to the contrary being circulated by the company the estate has no legal right to charge for entry to the village although it has every right to charge for access to its visitor centre, museums and passage through the building, It is legal to enter the village from any other entrance point with no toll payable.

A Visitor Centre owned by the Clovelly Estate Company has been built across the main street of the village, enterance at the top of the hill during opening hours is only available through this building. The visitor centre opens at 9.00am every day in the peak summer season. It is possible to enter the village at the top of the hill, avoiding the visitor centre via a gate which is unlocked, outside of these hours.

The visitor centre has been operational since 1988, The entrance fee to the visitor centre as of May 2012 is £6.50 for adults, £4.00 for children and £17.00 for a family of four. The fee covers all-day car parking, entry to two museums in the village - the Kingsley Museum and the Fisherman's Cottage - and a 15-minute film show of the village story, as well as use of the WC facilities in the visitor centre."

Wattle and daub?

The article currently states that the cottages in the village are made largely of wattle and daub, though no ref is provided. I checked the descriptions of all the Grade II* listed buildings in the village (see here), and rubble seems to be the main material used for those. I also checked some of the Grade II descriptions, but unfortunately most of those have not been internally inspected and are only described as "whitewashed", the material underneath remaining undescribed. Bideford Town Council states that wattle and daub is the main building material, but the wording is virtually identical to that used in the Wikipedia article and in lots of other pages thrown up by a google search, suggesting either a copyvio on our part or that possibly Wikipedia has been copied (or both). Can anyone suggest any authoritative architectural sources to clarify this? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Access by sea

I think the article could benefit by the addition of a subsection 'Access by sea' to complement the text describing access by land. I do not know how to go about it. Some history of the harbour and its varying capabilities over time, charts etc might be a start. I had a brief look at other pages with harbours to try to see how it could be done but did not come up with anything useful. Any thoughts? SovalValtos (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clovelly. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160817025902/http://www.devon-online.com/towns/clovelly/Welcome.asp to http://www.devon-online.com/towns/clovelly/Welcome.asp

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) 18:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admission Charges

A paragraph stated that a pedestrian access charge is levied. This statement was not sourced and is probably not completely accurate in so far as it may be possible to walk into the village without crossing the barrier. Consequently a Good Faith editor removed this statement. But whilst Wikipedia articles should be factual and as accurate as possible, the need for reliable citations overrides personal knowledge. In this case Clovelly Estate who claim to own the village state very clearly on their website that there is an admission charge. Further they explain very clearly why they must make these charges. The Good Faith editor opined that the admission charges were unimportant but that is only an opinion and it is not mine. The charges to visit villages such as Clovelly and Portmeirion are possibly the most important fact for the casual tourist.

There may be scope for a further edit to explain the rationale behind the charges or how to evade them (and whether such evasion is legal). However any such edit requires a citation of equal weight to the Clovelly website that states that the charges are set. OrewaTel (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor objects to any statement about the access charge and is reverting any edit that includes the charges even when cited. Rather than start an edit war, I am reporting here. The charges are real and the official Clovelly web site says they are mandatory. Before making a further edit, please discuss the matter here. OrewaTel (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be true that a commercial operation tries to charge admission to the village. It is also true that there are 'Public Rights of Way' into the village. Wikipedia not being a travel guide should not put charging detail in the lead with the justification that "The charges to visit .... are possibly the most important fact for the casual tourist". Mentions of access might be included elsewhere in the article. The independence and reliability of the Estate as a source is questionable as they seem to have a commercial axe to grind. Links which may help are [1] and [2]SovalValtos (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]