Talk:Exeter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Exeter[edit]

This really ought to be at Exeter. It has been the subject of a move by BRG, which Mintguy has opposed, and then an edit war. I had an open mind on this question to begin with, however Mintguy has made a very strong case for the primacy of Exeter. Further, as someone who lives many thousands of miles away from both the UK and the US and has not visited either place, I think I'm something of an impartial judge on this one: I have never heard of any place called "Exeter" except the one in England. I'll bet good money that the same applies to most people. Tannin 16:08 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Or if it does have any disambiguating text it should be in standard disambiguation form: Exeter (England). Only the US and English-speaking Canada commonly use commas. --mav 17:43 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It seems to me that Australians also use commas. In fact, when I looked up Tannin, he gave his location as "Ballarat, Victoria" -- using a comma just the same way Americans would. I've also seen Monash University given an address of "Clayton, Vic." --- BRG

Exeter College in Exeter, I think New Hampshire is notable, having produced certain US politicians (certain being an attribute in some cases). It was settled, I presume, by people who fanned out from Plymouth after Landing. Its notability derives from Exeter (England) so primacy remains if it matters. Midgley 12:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: nef statement that Exeter is worst "clone town"[edit]

I have to disagree with Seglea's edit that the new economics foundation's judgement was superficial. The parameters of the survey may have been superficial, but the result, within its own terms, does not seem not to be. It clearly only refers to shops on the High Street. Exeter does indeed have a varied selection of shops in "the more interesting roads immediately connecting to it", but this is irrelevant to nef's survey. Hence my NPOV edit, which is probably being generous!

Actually I think that the whole paragraph should be struck out, because the ephemeral nef survey has little relevance to a permanent encyclopaedia article. Or maybe it should be replaced with something along the lines of "In 2005 Exeter was voted the worst clone town in Britain - an award disputed by many local residents"

See http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/news_clonetownbritainresults.aspx and the pdf of the full report. Smalljim 22:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think there's a need for an edit war on this one. I decidedly agree that, at least in a few months' time, the whole thing should be reduced to a sentence. One of the advantages of Wikipedia over other encyclopedias, however, is that we can give temporary prominence to ephemeral issues like this, so I wouldn't want to do so immediately. On reflection, what I was objecting to was the inclusion of the location of the more interesting shops within the matter of opinion - that is a matter of fact; the superficiality of the judgement, however, is a genuine matter of opinion and you're right, it should be flagged as such. I just whipped out the "Some say..." usage because I think it is one of the worst Wikipedia-isms - the kind of thing you tell first year students off for saying in essays - and also often inserted when the reality is "Everyone who knows anything about it agrees, but a few people with a bee in their bonnets disagree..." I'm not suggesting this is one of these cases, of course, and actually in this case it's known who says it (local residents, as correctly noted above, and also if I remember rightly the city council). I'll try to track down the official rebuttal, but for now I'll just change to "many local residents", the truth of which I can vouch for, being one. seglea 08:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was going to say there is far too much about that topic and how about we reduce it sharply - I'm not even sure the survey needs mentioning by name except in the deep reference stuff in here or the history trail. A year on, time to boil it down. Should we have a picture of the Princesshay developments? If so where should it be taken from? Midgley 12:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
How can the Princesshay redevelopment possibly be used as an explanation for the clone like nature of the High Street? What 'banks' moved onto the High Street from there? Princesshay was low-rent and actually used to contain many independent retailers. Its 'redevelopment' will increase rents and force out the smaller retailers; ie the number of chain-stores in Exeter will go up not down. The paragraph should be truncated to a couple sentences on the NEF findings alone IMO.Simmyymmis 01:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. Is NEF notable? There are any number of surveys and that seemed unremarkable. "Exeter has the usual range of national chains in its High St" would be a possible insertion, for the moment I've gutted that paragraph and left it. Midgley 04:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Exeter Falcons[edit]

Should the Exeter Falcons Speedway team be included in the "Sports" section? I understand that they are on 'hiatus' this year due to the County Ground changing hands, however they are almost certain that they will be back next year. They've been a prominent team on the Speedway circuit, but I didn't know whether to include it as they are currently 'inactive'. - crewdy 16:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've only just read this and felt they should be there so i edited it in as the papers are full of the proposed move which i believe has been given the green light - Scott

Haldon FreeRide[edit]

Should Haldon Freeride be in the sports section? It's a voluntary project just outside exeter to create a series of mountainbike trails. I would just put it in the page myself but am wiki noob, so thought I'd ask first. --PeteOtaqui 14:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

John Carne Bidwill (1815-1853)[edit]

Bidwill was a botanist who was active in Australia, who was born in Exeter.

I would appreciate anyones contribution to John Carne Bidwill#Life in England - as he became a botanist I can only assume he was schooled somewhere! Given what he rose to become (a magistrate amongst other things) I am guessing his family weren't total nobodies at the time?

Hoping to hit on a local historian from Exeter, Garrie 23:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

I've removed an infobox cleanup tag from this article. I understand that it was placed there as a sugestion that the box be replaced with a standard template version. Unfortunately, no such template currently exists. {{Infobox city}} is rather US-centric, and English cities (but not Scottish cities) are currently uncatered for. A proposed solution would be to expand {{Infobox England place}} to accommodate English cities. The alternative, a new template forking either of the above templates, is less ideal, but more easily doable. — mholland 15:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Road[edit]

Someone added this to the article, ut it belongs here really:

  • have you ever heard of something starting at junction 31??? think it ends in exeter with junctions 29 through 31.... oh and there is a good little backroad off the 303 that goes through Larkhill and avoids stonehenge
Totnesmartin 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course the M5 starts at J31... pure metropolicentricism to suppose it starts somewhere in the wilds of Birmingham. (Compare Bluff, New Zealand, which advertises itself as "The place where the highway begins"). seglea (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
why I meant was, logically it would start at junction 1 and end at 31. In any case metrocentrism is appropriate as that's how the motorways were conceived - thay radiate away from the major cities. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
What? is irony dead in Totnes? seglea (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The A30 starts at J31 ... as does the A38 I suppose as it is the end of the MWay at that point.90.152.33.151 13:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Geography[edit]

I have added a section for this - using some of the existing Situation information but stripping out the history bits. I am trying to see how I can add those back in - but I am having difficulty shoehorning in the ecclesiastical bit. I leave below what I have not been able to find a home for (help). "From Saxon times until the 19th century, the diocese of Exeter covered the whole of the counties of Devon and Cornwall, and civil administration and services tended to follow the lines of the ecclesiastical."

I have removed the part about Topsham - it seems well covered in the Canal section. JamesFitz 23:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a sub category of Climate with Weather averages for Exeter (1971-2000 averages from Teignmouth from the Met Office). Bsrboy 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talkcontribs)

Sport[edit]

I have removed the following which an anon had put in as a header to the Sport section:

"The city of Exeter has underachieved in all aspects of sports, relative to other towns and cities in the United Kingdom of similar size and importance:"

Actually I think this is arguably true, but it is not supported by the material which follows in the Sport section, except in relation to soccer. If we are going to say this, we need some examples of other towns and cities of comparable importance, with links to the sections of articles about them which show clearly that they have performed better. Otherwise it's just POV seglea 19:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Economy[edit]

A newly designed Mcdonald's restaurant in Exeter.

Have removed the following McDonald's photo and explanation:

... for its shameless promotion of something that isn't in the slightest representative of the economy of Exeter. If the poster of the image wants to see this on Wiki, they'd be well advised to post it to the McDonald's article. --Manusmanus (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Princess Hay Explosion[edit]

Removed this section: a news item that already (for some unknown reason) has its own page. An encyclopedia is not the place for filing news stories, unless the story is in itself significant.

--Manusmanus (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think before this is remvoed there should be more debate on it. The inclusion in the Exeter article is minimal, because yes it has it's own page. Maybe you are unaware, it was an explosion with terrorist activity - just, unlike the Glasgow attempted attack, there was only one injured. Maybe reading the article may help you realise the severity of the incident. Thenthornthing (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it should have its own sub-section in the history section. A sentence at the end mentioning it with a link is sufficient. The picture might be used, if no other better ones can be found of this period, whilst moving the other images further up the page or perhaps moving them elsewhere, as they're not so much about history. bsrboy (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There are already numerous articles dedicated to terrorist incidents in the UK, which is where something like this belongs. It was a minor incident with no real significance in the long term. Compared to, say, levels of fatal drug use in Exeter, the "severity" of this failed plot is minimal. If you feel an absolute need to have this linked to this article, place a link to its own page in the "See also" section. --Manusmanus (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree - a totally insignificant event compared to the daily violence on the streets of all UK cities, I'd say remove all reference to it. --C Hawke (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Whereas I agree with the above comment, there still should be a minor mention on it. Even if it is just a sentence. People will still remember this, people in Exeter and with an interest in Devon that is, so therefore should be mentioned. Thenthornthing (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done - I've added one sentence about it at the end of the history section with a link to the article. bsrboy (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Still not at all convinced that this trifling event contributes in any way shape or form to the history of Exeter any more, than, say, it's a fact that people sometimes have picnics on the Cathedral green, but will live with the compromise. --Manusmanus (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It has a lot of third party references, although the main reason it has so many is because of its topic i.e. it creates good media attention. This isn't how Wikipedia works, but one sentence will not damage its reputation. bsrboy (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Physical Size of Exeter[edit]

Nowhere in the article is there a mention of the physical size (sq km) of Exeter. This information is usually included in the infobox. Given that it's both a city and a district, this information should readily be available on the page, no?--Criticalthinker (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

4,703, although I can't be bother to add it in, as the infobox should probably be converted to template:Infobox settlement. Jolly Ω Janner 13:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The High Street[edit]

As in most English towns and cities, people in Exeter don't talk about "High Street" but about "the High Street" (although "The city's High Street" and similar are perfectly ok, and an address in the High Street would just be written as "101 High Street"). I have changed wording throughout the article to reflect this. I don't know why it is so, but it is. It doesn't apply if the main street is called "Main Street" (rare in the UK) or "Fore Street" (common in Devon and Cornwall). seglea (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of streets, there is no mention of the usage "Hay" in Exeter's street names. Monomoit (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hay" I was informed by an Exeter City Council redcoat guide was a designation for a meadow, presumably literally - where there's hay. Therefore I presume Southernhay, Northernhay, and Princesshay were at one time meadows - no references for it though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.197.32 (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Not quite true, I think. "Haie" was a Norman French word meaning a fenced enclosure - as at Hay-on-Wye, Roundhay in Leeds, Pithay in Bristol, etc. The SOED has a definition of it: "a hedge, fence... an enclosure... a park". There's a reference to the word's use in Exeter here - I'm not sure why it is more prevalent in Exeter than elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Interesting - got me searching a bit. The name Princesshay is modern - I think this can be trusted for that. Northernhay and Southernhay were hedged enclosures to the north and south of the city walls, according to trusty old Gover, Mawer and Stenton's Placenames of Devon (1931) p.24. On p.129, GM&S further points out that placenames ending in -hayes or -hayne are common in S.E. Devon, and probably derive from the name of a medieval owner or a short placename (Stone, Coombe, Wood, Ford etc.), with the suffix coming to mean farm or holding, similar to -bury in Essex etc. Learned opinion may have changed in the intervening 80 years, of course, but there it is, FWIW.  —SMALLJIM  22:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Extonian?[edit]

Just noticed the demonym for a resident of Exeter is listed as "Extonian" whereas I thought it was "Exonian". Not saying that either is necessarily correct or incorrect I am just seeking clarification so is there any chance of a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.43.239 (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have changed it to Exonian, although I cannot find any reliable sources. Jolly Ω Janner 21:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
OED, the most reliable source possible for an English word, has Exonian, first recorded in 1871. It has no record of Extonian, the nearest related word being extonious (obsolete, rare), meaning astonishing. As an Exonian of 32 years' standing I have never heard Extonian used. OED derives Exonian from the late Latin Exonia for Exeter (the Romans of course called it Isca Dumnoniorum), which appears also in the signature of the Bishop of Exeter and in the designation of University of Exeter graduates as Exon. (Exoniensis) seglea (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I originaly added Extonian, but I know little about Exeter and I guess I mixed it up with Exonian. Jolly Ω Janner 16:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
From the OED dates, I strongly suspect that "Exonian" was one of those pseudo-traditional Victorian coinages. But Extonian would never do, because historically the x and t in Exeter where more separate - it was Excester or even Execester in the 16th century. I guess an Extonian should come from Exton, down on the east side of the Exe estuary. I must remember to introduce "extonious" into my everyday conversation, it should be quite self-referential. seglea (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Exmouth section[edit]

removed a short section on Exmouth, as follows: "Exeter also maintains a strong relationship with neighbouring Exmouth in terms of visitors, travel, schooling and the River Exe. An estimated 16000 people travel from Exeter to Exmouth every year and 6000 from Exmouth to Exeter. The local travel companies often organise trips around the landscape, places include the River Exe. Exmouth offered support and policing in shadow of the attempted terrorist attack at the Princess Hay shopping centre." This doesn't seem to belong in an Exeter article - the commuting figures are possibly interesting but don't add much unless there were comparable figures for other neighbouring towns, and anyway they are unclear and unreferenced. seglea (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Rougemont Castle[edit]

I removed the line "Note the red sandstone, characteristic of many older Exeter buildings." from the caption of the picture of Rougemont Castle gatehouse as it is misleading. Although it is true of many buildings in Exeter, it is not true of the castle gatehouse, which was constructed from reddish volcanic rock quarried at Rougemont circa 1068. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.196.227 (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the correction. Do you have a source for this kind of information? seglea (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's in: 'Geology Explained in South & East Devon' - Perkins, J.W. 1971, page 119. Sorry, pretty much my first ever wiki edit... I don't know how to reference stuff properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.196.227 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

New infobox image removed[edit]

Exeter Collage.jpg

Horza1972 (talk · contribs) add the image on the right to the infobox. I really don't see how four badly-cropped, dull images of featureless buildings could possibly represent Exeter. For that reason I have removed it. Let's see what others think and if the current collage is unrepresentative then we can work to update it with different individual images rather than use this poor collection. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think that "featureless buildings" aren't representative of Exeter than clearly you're not familiar with the city itself. Surely Wikipedia is about the facts and not about the promotion of the city through some highly selective, chocolate box images of the cathedral or Mol's Coffee House. The current images are nothing but a gross distortion of the visual reality of Exeter. It seems that my images were removed primarily because they weren't 'pretty', but the majority of central Exeter isn't pretty and I see little point in pretending that it is. This is a Wikipedia page, not a website sponsored by Exeter City Council to encourage tourism. The Wiki article on Exeter itself clearly states that: "Large areas of the city were rebuilt in the 1950s, when little attempt was made to preserve Exeter's ancient heritage. Damaged buildings were generally demolished rather than restored, and even the street plan was altered in an attempt to improve traffic circulation. The post-war buildings are generally perceived as being of little architectural merit, unlike many of those that they replaced". Shouldn't this be reflected in the city's main profile picture? My photographs of Sidwell Street, High Street and South Street represent the overall cityscape of central Exeter much more accurately than the images being used at the moment which are *totally* misleading. Horza1972 (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I know Exeter very well having worked there for seven years. As I said, if there are problems with the current image then let's tweak that, but your photos just went to the other extreme and are as unrepresentative of the city as what you call the chocolate box pictures are. Besides if there is to be a montage, rather than the preferred skyline image, then it should be representative of the whole city not just the centre. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 13:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't know how to reply to individual comments. 75% of the central city dates to no earlier than 1900. The current montage of photographs on the Wiki page for Exeter shows five images, four of which depict buildings that were built before 1900. That is not an accurate representation. If we are to use five photographs then three of them, at least, should show structures built over the last century and which still remain standing today. You say my photos went from one extreme to another. Sidwell Street, South Street and the High Street are three of Exeter's main commercial and historic routes (I admit that the inclusion of Coombe Street was unnecessary) and will be familiar to anyone visiting the city. What has the fact that they are full of hideous buildings got to do with anything? As I said before, it's Wikipedia, not a promo for Exeter City Council. I am curious to know why a very small handful of tourist hot spots is an acceptable reflection of the city as a whole. Historic buildings account for much less than 25% of the pre-20th century city and yet four of the five photos are of historic structures. It is a blatant misrepresenation, no?::Horza1972 (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Just chipping in as someone who lived in Exeter for 14 years or so (working as a town planner!!). Any montage needs to be balanced, showing historic and architecturally important structures as well as modern ones. The current montage reflects that reasonably well - the one uploaded by Horza1972 doesn't and is a little pointy. Indeed, "Large areas of the city centre were rebuilt in the 1950s" - but not the whole city. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
You say that the whole city wasn't rebuilt in the 1950s. This is correct. There are numerous suburbs that escaped, including St Leonard's and Pennsylvannia, but the current montage shows the Cathedral, the Queen Street clock tower, the Iron Bridge and the Cathedral Close, ALL of which are in the city centre. So the montage IS being presented as a reflection of the city centre. You would not expect a city's profile photograph to show images from its suburbs, surely? Why are you against the inclusion of images from South Street or North Street or Paris Street or Sidwell Street or the High Street, or Princesshay or of the Guildhall Shopping Centre, or any of the other almost totally rebuilt areas of the central city? Why the focus on the chocolate box? These rebuilt areas are much more accurate reflection of what the majority of the city is like and yet none of them appear on the current montage. It is simply not accurate. Does Wikipedia prefer prettiness to accuracy?:::Horza1972 (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I just looked up what WP:POINT means and if you excuse my pun I get the point. The four building images that were chosen are clearly trying to make a point and do not in any way represent the city that I live in. The castle, the parks, the hospital, the river and canal, even Princesshay - these are all things which represent my Exeter. I feel sad for you if your Exeter is full of soulless buildings. Do not use this article as a platform for pushing your singular point of view. --[[Special:Contributions/82.132.139.71|82.132.139.71(talk) 15:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no "singular point of view". It is a simple fact that the current montage does not reflect the physical reality of the majority of the city. The vast majority of the city does not look like the Cathedral Close or the Cathedral, or the Iron Bridge or the Clock Tower, and yet the montage gives the impression that it does. In my opinion that is just a plain misrepresentation. How often do Rougemont, the hospital(?), or the river really feature in your everyday experience of the city compared with the commerical centre? Surely the idea of the montage is to show what the city is like, at least within the limited space given to do so. Why are people so against the idea of showing photos of South Street or Sidwell Street or Paris Street, or even of the High Street?Horza1972 (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC):::::
(e/c)All I'm saying is that the current montage is a better reflection of the city than your montage. I'm not suggesting that the current montage is perfect, and, for a better balance, I'd personally support the idea of including perhaps one of your images - or one of the ones of the High Street at Geograph such as this (cropped) - in place of, say, the Iron Bridge or the clock tower. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. At least we can perhaps agree that the current balance depicted in the montage is wrong. I would personally suggest removing the images of the clock tower, the iron bridge and the county hall and replacing them with three new ones showing the river, the High Street looking towards Sidwell Street and perhaps one of the new Princesshay. In that way the modernity of the city would at least be fairly represented along with the cathedral and the Cathedral Close. I don't think that is unreasonableHorza1972 (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC):::::
There's no point people being involved in a discussion and then clearing off before a decision has been reached. The majority of the posters who have taken part in the discussion up until now have been amenable to a change in the montage. Only one has been vociferously against. What happens now? My suggestion of one image of the cathedral, one of the Cathedral Close (or preferably the Guildhall), one of the river, one of the modern High Street and one of the new Princesshay seems like a decent balance. If I don't get any response is there somewhere else on Wiki that I can refer the problem to? Who has the final say on this? I thought it was supposed to be user-generated content?Horza1972 (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I've submited a file to the Mediation Cabal asking them to try and get some agreement on this topic. It can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-08-02/Exeter Horza1972 (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that's way, way too premature. We've only just started a discussion - issues that they would deal with are much, much more intractable, and much less trivial, than this one. Amicable discussions on matters like this can take some time - there is no rush. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear, although I am very open to different photos representing the city as a whole, I would strongly prefer that these are spread throughout the article. My suggestion for the infobox itself is that we use a skyline image taken from high up of the city. These montage images look like crap when they are shown as 240pixel thumbnails - barely more than an inch wide on some computer screens. So rather than discuss a collection of images let's work to find one single image that shows the city. Also I support Ghmyrtle's comment that escalating this right now is very premature - things take weeks to get resolved on Wikipedia and that is completely normal. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 21:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, in that a view of the city as a whole from a high point would show very little that is distinctive about the city. I support in principle the idea of a montage of key features, so long as it's a balanced reflection of the city's history and its modern character. But, if one image is to be chosen, I suggest either the cathedral, the riverside, or a view of the High Street showing the Guildhall - which would be illustrative both of the city's history and its current character. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


Montage Exeter.jpg

Firstly, I'm sorry about jumping the boat with the mediation option. I've not edited on Wikipedia before so I apologise both for that and for my first montage. I shouldn't have left out the cathedral and I agree that the photos I used were a little aggressive even if it's something I feel strongly about. I've done a rough sample image of the sort of thing I had in mind for a replacement though. I've dropped the county hall, the iron bridge and the clock tower. I've retained the picture of the cathedral and added a detail from the Elizabethan portico of the Guildhall, as well as a view of the post-war High Street, the new Princesshay shopping centre and a view along the river towards the Exe Bridge. The sun is shining in all of the photos. It's only a rough attempt and can easily be tweaked. The river Exe is important to the city's history so I think it's important to include that. The cathedral and the Guildhall are the two most significant medieval landmarks (including perhaps the castle) and together they represent the ecclesiastical and civic power of medieval Exeter. The Princesshay development was the biggest building project seen in the city since World War Two so again I think its inclusion is valid. The modern High Street is Exeter's main thoroughfare and has been for nearly 2000 years. Only 25% of the pre-war High Street has remained intact however so I think that a shot of the post-war element is justifiable if it is to be representative.

As for whether to include a montage or a single shot, and I agree that sometimes a montage doesn't work as a small thumbnail. The options are to include fewer images, reduced from say five to three, or to use a single image. The problem with a single image is that it's not going to be possible to encapsulate the city within a single shot, at least not one that people will agree on. I have many photos showing new buildings juxtaposed against older ones but I don't think it will be satisfactory. The most important factor, for me, is that although Exeter is an historic city it is not a visually historic city. The area roughly bounded by the city walls is now to a very large extent a product of the 20th century and I strongly feel that the montage should reflect that. I think it's vital to remember that we're not designing a tourist brouchure but trying to convey accurately what the general look of the city is today. Any feedback on this will be welcome over the next few days or so.Horza1972 (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion has gone quiet here. Is this issue one that still needs to be addressed? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Steven, it has gone quiet because no-one else is remotely interested in this subject, despite agreement between the few of us involved so far that the main photo could be altered to represent a more accurate image of the city. I was told to wait for other contributors to offer their opinions. That was back in August and no-one else has turned up. I uploaded an alternative for debate (see above photograph) and not a single response. I appreciate that Wikipedia is a large entity, but I really don't see how anything can ever get edited using this process. It feels like going around in circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horza1972 (talkcontribs) 15:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You need to get a consensus for making changes. You could try asking editors whether they prefer either of your options to the montage that is in the article now. My view, for what it's worth, is that neither of your suggestions would improve the current image, so the current image should stay until something better comes along. That's not to say that it's the best montage that could ever be devised, but it's the best we've got, and it's obviously not really many people's priority to mess around with it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
In what way is the current montage preferable? Unless someone is familiar with the city then they can't possibly judge whether a montage is an accurate reflection of a city, and therefore the only criteria upon which they could judge is aesthetic preference. Thus a nice old building might be seen as preferable to a post-war High Street, even though the dominance of post-war architecture in the city centre far outweighs the handful of surviving historic buildings. My montage showed the post-war High Street (the city's main shopping thoroughfare), the new Princesshay development (regarded by the city council as Exeter's biggest ecomonic attraction), the river (key to the city's development), the Guildhall (the city's most important civic building), and the Cathedral. I don't understand why these aren't preferable to the Iron Bridge (which hardly anyone ever sees as they're driving on top of it), the Queen Street clock tower (some distance beyond the boundary of the city walls) and Devon County Hall (which is of no architectural distinction and which most people in Exeter wouldn't even recognise as it's not even easily visible from the road!). I like to think that I have presented very sound factual reasons in my previous posts why the current montage is unrepresentative of the city. Of course it's not most people's priority. But isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? One person's irrelevance is another person's priority, and so the website grows. Does something have to become everyone else's 'priority' before an alteration can take place?94.195.111.63 (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
It's preferable to me, personally, because I think the photos are better and the montage looks more balanced. In terms of content, overall, there may be little to choose between them - I'm not keen on the photos of the Iron Bridge and clock tower, and equally I'm not keen on the ones of the High Street and river. But as you say, others will have a different opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
If you think that there is 'little to choose' between the content of the two montages (one showing a number of obscure areas of the city which even most Exonians aren't that familiar with and another showing major areas of the city centre which thousands of people see every day) then clearly I've been wasting my time. As for these mythical 'others' you mention, as you said yourself, it's no-one else's priority and clearly no-one else is interested. I was fobbed off with that excuse back in August, and here we are in November no further forward. Let the current montage stay. The fact that something which is clearly and demonstrably unrepresentative and inaccurate should be allowed to remain despite evidence to the contrary is frankly ludicrous. But you win, which I suspect was the ultimate goal all along. I have nothing further to add. I just hope some people stumble across this discussion at some point so they can make their own minds up.94.195.111.63 (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm just one person. I suggest you make the change to the page yourself, and see if it provokes any other comments. I won't revert it myself - I really don't have a strong enough opinion on it. If others agree with you, what you've done has been worthwhile. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Not many people look at this page, Horza1972 (I assume that's who the IP is - please remember to log in when editing), as the article traffic stats show, so although a fair number of people will have this page watchlisted, unless there's interesting activity here it's likely to be some while before another opinion is offered. Anyway, as Ghmyrtle has suggested, add your newer montage to the article and see what happens.
Here's another idea - you're obviously handy with a camera, so if you're local you could note that we need better photos of the Barnfield Theatre, the RAMM (the hoardings should be removed soon, I believe), Northernhay Gardens, the Civic Centre, etc. I don't think we have any good photos of the prison, the RD&E, or Exeter College, and more for the Uni would be welcome too.
BTW, although I've noted the discussion, I've not taken part because, as I suspect is the case with most others, I don't have any strong preference (apart from not liking Horza1972's first suggestion). Hope this helps  —SMALLJIM  22:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Call me old fashioned, but I hate the montage pictures used for infoboxes and much prefer a cityscape photo. It shows both old and new, bad and good buildings. Admitadly this can be challenging to find good vantage points, but I believe the Physics Building at the uni might show a good shot, as it's the highest building (I believe) outside of the city centre. Jolly Ω Janner 23:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem I have with that sort of shot is that they rarely show much of significance about the city. They may give an impression of landscape setting and city centre skyscrapers, but rarely anything that shows the distinctive character of the place. So, I prefer montages. (Feel free to call me old-fashioned as well!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
If you're old-fashioned, JJ, then you've grown old too quickly ;) I have a panorama taken from the north tower of the cathedral that might fit the bill. Of course, as Ghmyrtle says, it doesn't look good thumbnailed, and there's quite a lot of curvature of straight lines, but it does show the Cathedral Green, the new Princesshay etc. quite well. I'll see if I can straighten it out a bit and upload it.  —SMALLJIM  00:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
A panorama would be excellent - but perhaps within, or at the end of, the article, where it can span the whole width of the page (or screen). Something else is needed to fit in the infobox. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Panorama of Exeter looking north from the roof of the north tower of the cathedral
Here you go, I've straightened it out as best as I can. Looks better larger. Don't know where it would best fit in the article (if at all) so I'll let someone else decide what to do with it.  —SMALLJIM  21:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you tweak that pano so that the horizon is level? It looks odd with the fisheye-like distortion.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The horizon shouldn't be quite level - it rises up behind the city towards Pennsylvania/Stoke Hill, of course. But it was rather bulgy - I've de-fisheye'ed it a bit - is that any better? (May need to purge the page to update thumb, as usual)  —SMALLJIM  17:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Yep it does look better thanks. That sort of shot is never going to be "perfect", as its got the edge of the square in foreground and it woule be nice to keep it rectilinear but that's not feasible in a panoramic shot. That's about as good as you can get.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Given the effort expended to try and put this together, I have tried to add it to the article. Not sure if it works or not though. Comments welcome.--NHSavage (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Thanks for adding it, but to be honest seeing it again after a gap of several months, it looks to me more like a not very successful exercise in stitching together a panorama rather than a useful depiction of the city - I find the curvature in the foreground really distracting now. I'll have another look at the originals though, since some of the individual photos might be useful: the view of the new Princesshay could be interesting, for instance. Any other opinions?  —SMALLJIM  10:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Climate[edit]

Any reason the climate box for Teignmouth was on the page? I've removed it, as I don't see why it and the infobox for Exeter was required. 77.99.6.174 (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Very simple - Teignmouth is the nearest location for Met Office weather figures - and it really is very close by. --Bob Re-born (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Namesakes[edit]

I have just tidied up the information in the Twinnings section on Exeter, New Hampshire a little, although it does not have any references yet. However, I am not sure whether we should include places named after Exeter as there are so many (see Exeter (disambiguation)). How do we decide which should be included here (presumably based on some concept of importance?). If we want to retain this information the name of the section should probably change to reflect this. Perhaps Twin towns and other places named Exeter? If we are going down this route, we might want to mention that there is a Pennsylvania in Exeter and an Exeter in Pennsylvania...--NHSavage (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:UKCITIES says to just include a note on twinning arrangements and activities under Culture, so I don't think there's any need to add very much, certainly not about other places with the same name, though maybe Exeter, NH would warrant a mention under History. Pennsylvania is probably worth a mention too, since 'our' suburb was named after 'their' Commonwealth, in reverse of the normal pattern.  —SMALLJIM  11:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I wonder if we need a section on suburbs of Exeter, where we include the information on Pensylvania. Is it worth having a specific section in the culture section on Places named after Exeter with a quick summary of Exeter, NH and a list of the others which are named directly after our Exeter.--NHSavage (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I also note that WP:UKCITIES says to include under Gography: A note on any divisions or suburbs of the settlement--NHSavage (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The issue of suburbs was solved for Plymouth by creating a List of places in Plymouth which is linked from the Geography section. I guess this would work for Exeter too. Looking at Category:Exeter, we already have articles on many of the suburbs, including—as I just discovered—Pennsylvania, Devon, so there wouldn't be too many redlinks. I'm still not sure about listing the places named after Exeter, though; as you yourself ask, where would we draw the line? If you want to do this, I'd suggest that a link to Exeter (disambiguation) may be more appropriate.  —SMALLJIM  21:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
List of places in Exeter now exists but only with the places that currently have articles. Added into Geography section in same form as in Plymouth. Also moved the info on Exeter, NH into section on history.--NHSavage (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I have expanded it some more now. That probably concludes the current rampage.--NHSavage (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Nice work on adding all those places - hope you can help in creating the missing articles :) I've added a stub for Polsloe.  —SMALLJIM  20:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay I'll bite... I have added stubs for all the missing churches.--NHSavage (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Buddhist Moonstone doorstep[edit]

In April 2013 a semi-circular Buddhist temple stone, that had been used for many years as a doorstep, at the Exeter home of Mike and Bronwyn Hickmott, was sold at auction at Bonhams for over £500,000 ($800,000). The stone would have been located at the bottom of a Buddhist temple in what is now Sri Lanka, 1,000 years ago, but had ended up with the Hickmott's after Bronwyn's parents bought it from a tea planter who had returned from Sri Lanka in the 1950s.[1]. Shame that this seems too trivial to fit in here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge[edit]

Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, like this one.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod talk 16:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 fire[edit]

Isn't there now too much information on the 2016 fire that destroyed the Royal Clarence Hotel? I propose trimming it to a summary – extra detail, such as the laser survey, should go in the hotel's article.  —SMALLJIM  11:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I trimmed it down and moved whatever material could be used to the article on Royal Clarence Hotel. Not sure how relevant the information on the Christmas market is to either article though, but for right now it's at Royal Clarence Hotel. Jolly Ω Janner 23:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks JJ. The Christmas market has been going for a few years now – the only different aspect is the "special chalet for the use of independent traders ... who have been closed since the fire took place." so I've amended it a little to reflect that. I've also copyedited the text to run together some of the short sentences.  —SMALLJIM  11:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exeter. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 04:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

In Devon, and also within the county of Devon besides[edit]

Exeter is a cathedral city in Devon, England [...]. It lies within the county of Devon [....]

Is there a subtle difference in meaning between these two statements? Even if there is, could they not be combined in one sentence? —Tamfang (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Exeter. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 05:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)