Talk:Ludlow

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

[Untitled][edit]

In recent years Ludlow has become an unlikely gastronomic centre. It is the only rural town in England with three Michelin starred restaurants and also has an annual food festival.

History[edit]

Okay a history of Ludlow has been added, although it is a little weak on the more recent centuries and could use some expansion. Thanks. — RJH 16:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Help?[edit]

Anyone want to take a look at History of Shropshire- it's sadly lacking in places and I'm sure some material from the history section here could help! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

extant[edit]

At the end of the first para there is the word "extant". This doesn't mean much to me, does anyone know what it means and could it be replaced with another word. SuzanneKn 21:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It means 'existing' or 'surviving' (as in something historical that is still around). But it doesn't add much to the sentence, so I've removed it. Barnabypage 07:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
On further examination, the sentence itself is dubious so it's gone... Barnabypage 07:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

References[edit]

The recent addition of references by User:Jeremy Bolwell, which, although good intentioned, seem incorrect to me. Firstly, because the [link] syntax has been used instead of [1], the article looks cluttered (especially the introduction). However, i'm not sure whether photographs can actually be used as references, especially to this extent. 84.66.212.99 (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Geograph photos relate closely to the text and enable a varied visual source to support it. One person's cluttered is anothers well cross referenced. (Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

still could do with converting to the below format:

  1. ^ link

Geograph?[edit]

Just a note that not only is the inclusion of Geograph.org.uk citation excessive, but it is not a reliable source. Geograph.org.uk is an open source community project just like Wikipedia. The commentary beneath the photographs is just personal stuff added by users and may not verifiable. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Similarly as noted above but ignored... 84.67.145.16 (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not ignored - trialled to poll opinions - its specifically the geograph photos that are valid/useful not the text some geographers add, although this is also sometimes very useful, if we're takling about verifiability then the whole of Wikipedia can be called into question - lets add some colour, not just dry academic references in swathes of text, lets poll more opinion than one or two..Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "dry academic references" are required by policy, not polls or opinions, see WP:A. Geograph is absolutely not a reliable source and users should be reluctant to add them anyway in this capacity. It really does need addressing. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Should they be removed altogether then? I do agree that they seem to indicate relatively nothing reference-wise. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The geograph photos enable anyone to see what is described in the text - you can read and then view the photos, if its of interest. Im sure that you agree that it helps to see something rather than a) imagine it b) attempt to check it out somewhere else (which would be the end result of removing them altogether). There are many more problems with some Wikipedia articles similar to Ludlow's than having 'too many' geograph photos. Remember it is possible that some Wikipedia viewers may actually want to come and visit the town in the real world and would expect to be able to see possible points of interest online first, add to them, add photos etc. Its their views maybe we should also seek. Also, could you give me an example of where a geograph photo in this article is 'absolutely not reliable', 'excessive' or 'indicates nothing'. Im open to ideas that ADD something rather than diminish. If there's a better way lets find it. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC).
While I accept they are useful in that they show the place/area you are describing, I will illustrate in some examples below the problems. Anyway, just because other articles have bigger problems than this, that doesn't excuse leaving this article in this state.
  • "and was the location of the market place [1]" - Doesn't show any kind of market, any details on the history of the market.
  • "It lies within a bend of the River Teme [2]" - Shows a part of the river - in no way shows how the river 'bends' around the town Would a map link not be more suitable?
  • "some time around the 12th century weirs [3] were added along the river" - Shows one weir, does not indicate that there's more than one, doesn't support that they were constructed in the 12th century.
I could go on. Essentially, they just show what the place you're describing looks like. But they aren't reliable for many of the statements that are made. Sure, Ludlow has a river running beside the castle; how does this show that it's within a meander? Seems like being overly picky, but I think this is basically what the problem is. Another example would be the weirs- The picture shows one of them, but how does this justify the statement about the time they were built? and that there are many more? (weirs). You could link to a picture of every Weir, but it really isn't the way to go. This is why written references are the norm.
My other main issue with these pictures is that they aren't properly referenced with the < ref > tags. Instead they are just clumsily placed like [ links ] which disrupts the flow of the text; this is particularly noticable in the introduction.
Anyway, I'm not trying to have a go, I just think it looks like a huge mess at the moment and isn't particularly helpful. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I will respond as concisely as I can - in the examples you have selected above as being problematical / spurious the 1st geograph photo you cite actually IS a photo of Ludlow marketplace, the green & white market stalls are visible and the photo shows one aspect of the market square and its scale / size, the 2nd is a photo of the Teme below Ludlow Castle where the river bends as it approaches the huge rocky eminence that the castle sits atop and furthermore an OS map is visible on the geograph photo page (below the photo) showing the bend, the 3rd example you cite shows one of the weirs as it looks today, as its covered by water for most of the year I cant imagine how a photo could effectively depict its construction...?...especially 12th century construction (a Tardis maybe?). I feel you ARE being picky. I live in Ludlow, in the square, and I know all the sites described on Wikipedia and the geograph photos intimately but I feel that even a casual observer / researcher would benefit from their inclusion - if you take a bit of time and study the map on geograph accompanying EVERY photo you will see that. To describe it as 'a huge mess' is I feel over critical, pedantic even, huffy maybe - and after all its just ONE opinion, and your own. Relax, and offer a constructive compromise. I simply want the Ludlow article to be very rich, very well-supported, very informative, very varied, and involving as many possible useful contributors and sources as possible. Other opinions welcome.Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do apologise if i've angered you or come off as being overly critical. Perhaps I was a bit picky with the above examples, but I really do feel that geograph images, while they may look pretty, are not what Wikipedia would define as a 'verifiable source'. But alas, we'll see what others say. At the very least, the links should be converted into < ref > format. Thanks. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

These geograph references are ridiculous. By all means put a link to the geograph page but I am remioving all the links. --MJB (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see. Got your 'mate' to do the removal of ALL the geograph photos to a single external link; (having any photos that can be tied in with the text is 'ridiculous' of course). No discussion or further opinions. Bland is best. Your way or the highway. Its obviously your article not everyones. I would love to meet you. Pompous - you??!. Sad - you?? Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse Me, but I did in no way remove or encourage any other user to remove the said images. Even though I agree with what MJB did, I reject your implication that I'm trying to 'own' the article. How dare you personally insult me, when I have remained nothing but civil. Frankly, if anything, it's you who's trying to 'own' the article. Of course you live there, so you must know right. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I don't have a particular interest in Ludlow, but I do have an interest in many other articles on Marches towns and villages in which User:Jeremy Bolwell has contributed a great deal of valuable information, and many links to useful, relevant and (as far as I know) available photographs. However, in many cases the contributions do not, unfortunately, comply with WP policy/guidance, in terms of referencing or formatting. So far I've been able to revert some changes but left others, but I would prefer them to be properly formatted throughout. Surely there is scope for a reasonable compromise here, whereby the photographs are used on the pages, where appropriate, without misleading/unverifiable captions, and formatted correctly? I've come to learn that, although Wikipedia pages should be good to look at wherever possible, it's even more important that they should be reliable and verifiable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe - though I've never tried it - that Geograph images can be used through {{geograph}}. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The {{geograph}} tag is only for use in image descriptions. Geograph images may be freely copied and uploaded (to the Commons please!) and then included in articles like any other image. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The page was a bloody mess dotted with poor citations. Illusrations are in the text already. --MJB (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Please agree to compromise, not abuse. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
At last the voice of reason - thats all I sought initially, views from more than 3 or 4 experienced users with a few life skills and a bit of censensus, after all we obviously all come from the standpoint of wanting the Ludlow article to be improved. I did put the geograph photos on a while back when I was possibly a little too keen on the idea and I can certainly see that they arent perfect now for our purposes - but 'a bloody mess' is hardly a neutral opinion and expressing robust views out of the blue is more than likely to provoke anyone.Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


The page is or was a mess but that is hardly your fault. I am not sure that fault is the correct word full stop. It is clear that the page can be so much better and it may be instructive to look at other Wikipedia:Good articles. Why not adopt it and try to improve it? If it helps I am doing the same with Knighton, Powys. I have no principled objection to geograph but request that you cite correctly. Finally, avoid threats. Bang out of order. --MJB (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No one person is right or wrong here. I've made a few quick corrections to grammar {yes, I can spell it korrectlee), style, etc. as well, and added a tag as the History section is particularly weak on references. The style which should be adopted is set out at WP:UKTOWNS. (By the way, I'm also very well aware that there is a lot more to do on some of "my" articles like Chepstow, which I hope to tackle some time soon.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I hardly think getting in a strop, calling people 'pompous', 'sad' and lacking 'life skills' is the best way to further your viewpoint. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WORK[edit]

An important town and the making of a good page but lots of wiork needed. For those with the time, the shortcut to the right may be a good starting point

- no suggestion that sprinkling liberally with geograph links is best practice! I am focussed on lifting Knighton, Powys to GA status but will try to help. --MJB (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol! Well I have to admire your appreciation of being bold. I'll drop by every now and then, but I'm actively trying to improve Shrewsbury to GA standard, although admittedly I appear to be failing. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. I was born in Salop so a cause close to my heart. --MJB (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Shropshire[edit]

Is anyone interested in becoming a member of a WikiProject dedicated to the county of Shropshire? If so, please sign your name underthe proposal. Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Michelin Stars[edit]

The Merchant House closed about 2 years ago - I think Sean Hill now has a restaurant in Worcester. Hibiscus has moved to London. This just leaves Mr Underhills. If anyone actually knew Ludlow they'd have corrected this. Why don't I do it - because I think the Gastronomy section needs re-writing, and I don't have time to do it.Thewiltog (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sean Hill now runs the Walnut Tree restaurant at Llandewi Skirrid just outside Abergavenny, Hibiscus is in Mayfair and doing well, having been replaced in their premises in Ludlow by La Becasse who are also on the rise and we can expect a Michelin star there soon, (now received Oct 2008), Mr Underhills still have their one star. Just to update. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Independent bookstores?[edit]

I'm a townie and I don't know of any independent bookstores left in Ludlow. The article says:

By the 20th century, the town had seen a growth in tourism, leading to the appearance of many antique dealers, as well as art dealers and independent bookshops.

but doesn't make clear that these are mostly gone (or in the case of bookshops, gone altogether). If it's worth mentioning the rise of this sector of the local economy, isn't it worth mentioning its fall? - if for no other reason than to stop giving tourists the (false) impression that they are going to find a book and antique haven when they come to town? Just a thought.--88.107.148.52 (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please edit the article accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical populations[edit]

Shouldn't those figures for South Shropshire be in the South Shropshire article rather than here? Barnabypage (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I would guess those were added because the editor who included them couldn't find the relevant information for Shropshire, and in that situation I can see the point of it (although it might not be the best solution). However, we have population data for Ludlow parish between 1801 and 1961 here and of course the 2001 census so I'll add that later today in place of the South Shropshire stats. Nev1 (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Great, that will be much more helpful to the reader. Barnabypage (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Distances[edit]

The convention is to use the great circle distanceSovalValtos (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Pardon? What is this "great circle distance" and where is this "convention" you speak of? Argovian (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I came across this in the Teahouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_264#Guideline_regarding_.22distance.22 which is what lead me to the convention that distances between towns are given as the straight line distance between them, or more grandly Great-circle distance, rather than measured by a road route. The same applies at sea where the distance between ports is the straight line, even over shallows and icebergs! A road route distance would be useful in some circumstances, but not for relative locations.SovalValtos (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I strongly argue when talking about two settlements linked only by land. It's what is relevant to people, who don't "fly like the crow" in a straight line across hills, rivers and woodlands. A straight line distance makes sense for distances between airports, places across a sea, etc, but not settlements within England! Please consider. Argovian (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
And in any case, the opening sentence in Ludlow's article points out that the town is on the A49 road, and then gives the distances to the next two major towns on that road. So it actually would not make sense to jump to "straight line" distances in that sentence. Argovian (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I think both have their place, but if only one distance is to be given between settlements, then it should be the great-circle one. However I am sure that all this will have been discussed before, and a consensus arrived at. I am not sufficiently familiar with policies and guidelines to find the appropriate guidance; I did try and failed, so I will ask at the Teahouse. I only started editing this year. There is further room for confusion, as above you mentioned "that shortest road distance makes sense" and then go on to use the A49, whilst others might think a route via Seifton and Ticklerton might be the shortest. Let us see what others thinkSovalValtos (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Argovian The Teahouse page is Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions SovalValtos (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Rather than taking the view of a single editor at the Teahouse, it might be better to raise the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. I don't think there has been a definite view formed there in the past, but a reference has been made to this site - which can calculate both distances. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Not looking for a view of a single editor at Teahouse, looking for help in finding policy or guidance. Thank you for the postcode site, but not much use in the Sahara or Siberia.SovalValtos (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The last time I was there, Ludlow was definitely in the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
These two types of measurement (by road and "as the crow flies") give different types of information: the first is practical and relates to people's lives on the ground, whereas the second is locational/cartographic and relates to positions on the globe. I generally prefer to use the locational/cartographic approach; two disadvantages with stating measurements by road are 1) the distance depends which route is used, and 2) some settlements may be physically very close but due to obstacles are many miles by road (e.g. Barmouth and Fairbourne). Either way I think it's important to make it clear how a measurement is made: I usually use the phrase, "measured directly, X is Y miles (km) north of Z". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, which is why in this instance (the lede to Ludlow) it is distances as measured along the A49 route to Hereford and Shrewsbury, as that is what is being described (Ludlow's situation on the A49 and its relationship to the two nearest major towns on that route). Argovian (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I found this discussion at the Teahouse. To the best of my knowledge there is no guideline on how to measure distances between locations. There has been a discussion on where to measure from, city center or city border [4] [5], where the conclusion was to find sources, be reasonable and count from city center to city center as the source did, because it would be silly if the distance between two places changes if a town grows and the distance having to be continually updated. In the same way I would say to be reasonable here. Find sources and cite them. If there is too big a gap between road and aerial distance, go for aerial, or state it is a roaddistance, because it would be silly if the distance shrinks just because you take a different route or because a road is being worked on. In this case it is clearly stated that it lies along the road, which implies distances by road. I don't have any problem with that. If someone does, put a note on it, saying that it is following thay road, or try formulating it better, or simply remove the thing. Sorry I can't be more helpfull, but it isn't rocketscience but just a rough location, a kilometer on or off is not vital, the solution differs from situation to situation, and it is all down to sources and common sense. All the best figuring it out. - Taketa (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for a good discussion. I have re-written the lead/lede to clarify that the measurement is by the main road, rather than by shortest road distance or a straight line. Meanwhile I will investigate the broader principle and try to remember to report back here. SovalValtos (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
In the end, so long as the reader knows what the distance(s) refers to, there shouldn't be an issue with what method is used. Argovian (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sited / situated[edit]

Regarding this edit, editors should be aware that, in geography, site and situation have specific meanings; a settlement's site describes its original position (at a river crossing, on a hilltop, by an estuary etc.), whereas its situation describes its position in relation to other settlements and features that are further afield. They are not general locational terms to be interchanged with "located" "found at" etc. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This gives a basic introduction to the concept, but someone should write a brief article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, "site" and "situation" have somewhat different meanings in geography. But consider this edit, in which a user corrects (?) "The town is at the confluence of the River Corve with the River Teme", in part by inserting "sited" in front of the preposition phrase. This seems to add nothing whatever. It's a fact of English that BE happily takes as predicative complement a noun phrase ("Hoary is a fogey"), an adjective phrase ("Hoary is venerable"), or a preposition phrase ("Hoary is over the hill"). Thus the milk's in the fridge, the cash is on the table, the book is about steam engines, the meeting is at two o'clock, he's into heavy metal, Drumpf is out of his tiny mind, various other politicians are beneath contempt, you're in with the in crowd, etc. The BBC page to which Ghmyrtle links indicates when "sited" would be preferable to "situated" and vice versa, but it doesn't start to say that/how/when either of these is preferable to a simple preposition phrase. I wouldn't dispute that they are widely used, but wide use doesn't entail preferability. To me, they (with "located") are almost always mere flab, and it seems from this edit that Tony1 agrees. -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The hair-splitting nuances alluded to above are beyond all but one in 100,000 readers, including me. I suggest that what is indeed "flab" continue to be treated as such and shot down at sight without question as linguistic terrorism. I agree with that old fogey Hoary. Tony (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The site of a place has specific connotations. Saying that a settlement is "sited" in relation to specific pre-existing geographical features conveys more information than if we say it is merely "at" a location. It is saying that the settlement's existence was the result of its relationship to those features. Would a link to a brief article explaining the meaning of "site" convince you, if one were written? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It wouldn't convince me, I'm afraid, because I can anyway guess that the confluence of the River Corve with the River Teme is a geographical feature that preexisted the town of Ludlow. (After all, in Britain -- unlike, say, Japan -- earthquakes, government whims, etc seldom alter the course of rivers.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not simply that they pre-existed the settlements. Settlements arise because of their site, or situation - they are not distributed randomly across the surface of the globe. Some are sited at river confluences (one reason being that, in the days when rivers were major transport arteries, they were meeting places), others are sited on sea inlets, others are sited at locations that maximise access to trading partners, others are sited close to mineral extraction, others are sited where earlier roads crossed, etc. etc. etc. This is the basis of much study in human geography - it is not a trivial matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
PS: I don't want to appear to patronise anyone, but these links may be helpful - [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].... etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
PPS: In answer to SovalValtos' edit summary - we have - usually, in Britain - no idea who first chose a particular site at which to live - it may well have happened thousands of years ago, before any records. But the fact that there are no written records still does not make the decision random - it was the result of their assessment of the characteristics of the site. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
[Messages crossed: no time right now to look at the links, sorry. Hope to do so later.] That's very true. But it's pretty obvious that settlements arise in these places because of these factors. I don't think we need to say that this one popped up at the confluence because there was a confluence there. (Indeed, I suppose that if some bone-headed time-waster demanded evidence that it arose at the confluence because of the confluence (and not because, say, somebody had a vision of the FSM directing them to drive in stakes at that place, confluence or no confluence) then it would be hard to provide this. ¶ I notice that the flabby word "located" appears in this article 18 times. -- Hoary (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Saying something is "pretty obvious" to you does not make it obvious to other readers. I've noticed that basic geographical concepts are very poorly covered on WP, and that needs to be addressed. I will add the drafting of an article on Site (geography) to my to-do list - it seems that it is needed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm all for precision and thus the correct selection of words to convey the right meaning. As a general comment, we are gradually losing precision in the English language e.g. the difference between "fewer" and "less" because of widespread sloppy usage. The purpose of an encylopaedia is to inform and educate and so we should try to choose our words well. But this should be backed by good evidence, not opinion, so it would be good to see some references cited on the use of "sited", "located" and "situated". Bermicourt (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The alleged sloppiness of use of "less" where "fewer" would also fit is a distraction, and one based on two or more misunderstandings. Would you really like me to expand on this -- here, on a talk page about the Ludlow article? ¶ I don't deny that "sited" and "situated" aren't always entirely bleached of meaning. I don't think that anyone has suggested that any change, or attempted change, or proposed change, should invert their use. ¶ We are, or I am, invited to look at a number of web pages. So I've dutifully done just that. "Settlement site" (BBC): about the concept/noun "site". "Settlement site and situation" (BBC): about the concepts/nouns "site" and "situation". "Site and situation" (BBC): ditto. "Site and situation" (Barcelona Field Studies Centre): ditto. "Site and situation" ("S-cool: The revision website"): about sites. None of these pages purports to explain how it's better to say that a town is sited somewhere than simply to say that it is somewhere. ¶ I am not a geographer. Some or all of you people who insist on "sited" and "situated" where appropriate (and perhaps on "located" too, though I've not noticed any justification for this) may for all I know be geographers. Indeed, you may even have doctorates in geography. Obviously geographers know vastly more about geography than I do. It's not at all surprising if geographers have their own terminology and good reasons for insistence on its use. But is this just a matter of precision? ¶ For some settlements (Brasilia immediately comes to mind), their inception is a matter of historical fact. But like many settlements, Ludlow's start is prehistoric. It's at the confluence of two rivers, and the combination of our (even my) knowledge of geography and Occam's razor tells us that this is why it is where it is. But we don't know this for a fact and we never will. Thus so far as "sited" has a meaning (and I'll concede that it can have one), to insist that Ludlow didn't just pop up at a confluence for no reason or for some inscrutable reason (e.g. because of some prehistoric guru's vision of the FSM directing that it should be there) but that it was instead sited there, because after all that's how settlements were sited -- this strikes me as somewhat circular reasoning; and thus "sited" seems unfortunate. ("Probably sited" or similar: acceptable, if wordy.) If OTOH "sited" is noncommittal, then it's two wasted syllables. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Whilst I asked for a cit for "The town was sited at the confluence of the River Corve with the River Teme" with a brief edit summary [11], my preference is and was that sited should not be used in that sentence. The reason being that we do not have a source for the confluence of the rivers being the site. There are several alternatives for the siting such as the existence of the Ludford (which is closer than the confluence), an intersection of trade routes, an easily fortified hill, etc,; none of which we have sources for. I have not found a source for the confluence being the site though archaeologists may have found and published evidence. I am in agreement with Tony and Hoary about flab. I also agree with PaleCloudedWhite and Ghmyrtle that sited has a precise meaning. It is exactly because it has a precise meaning that it should not be used here. I did not ask for a source for who sited it, just for a source that "The town was sited at the confluence of the River Corve with the River Teme". By the way, I find the BBC page poor beer as it suggests that a National Park Boundary was a reason for the development of the site of Southampton! SovalValtos (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I accept that there may well be alternative academically-supported theories as to why Ludlow is sited where it is - I don't have the sources on that town to be certain, and perhaps there were other factors. I'm quite sure that reliable sources explaining its location can be found, and ideally should be found and included. But, I hope that the argument that "sited" or "situated" are flabby and unnecessary terms has been dismissed. The words have a specific meaning, in academic geography - they should be used where there are sources to support them. And, an article evidently does need to be written on the meaning of the word "site" in settlement pattern geography. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle, SovalValtos says that "sited" has meaning, and also (if I understand them correctly) that saying that a settlement was sited in such-and-such a place is a factual assertion. SovalValtos wants evidence for such an assertion. You do too. But you're surprisingly keen to use the term even without evidence. If the article were to say "The town is at the confluence of the River Corve with the River Teme", I do not think that this would imply "The town is at the confluence of the River Corve with the River Teme for reasons that have given rise to an unusual degree of bafflement among academics who have studied the matter". So what's wrong with snipping "sited"? Pardon a minor diversion. The word "located" may have meaning: example, "I eventually located the remote control under the pile of toys on the floor." But in such sentences as "The medieval settlement, which grew as a planned town located by the Norman castle, is located largely on the top of a hill", it seems utterly bleached of meaning. (Geographers, feel free to tell me that I'm wrong. What nuance does this have that is missing from the same thing minus "located"?) Yet the word "located" appears eighteen times in this article. I have trouble believing that there isn't a belief among many editors of Wikipedia that it is somehow unseemly or otherwise unacceptable for a predicative complement to be a preposition phrase, and that the insertion of one or other among "sited", "situated" and "located" (and, in non-geographical contexts, "positioned") is needed to impart a suitable level of decorum, dignity or whatever. I completely disagree (I think it's usually no more than pompous flab), but perhaps our idiolects differ. If you do think insertion of a past participle is a matter of decorum or whatever, do please say so. And if you don't, then would you care to enlighten me about the meaning of "located", and also say why the meaningful word "sited" should be used despite a lack of evidence for the assertion that it implies? -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hoary I think you may be misunderstanding me. I'm fully in support of removing words like "located" and "situated" when they are unnecessary flab, as in many cases they are. More than that, I can accept - given this discussion - that the argument that Ludlow is "sited" in relation to particular natural features - which had seemed meaningful, as well as uncontentious to me - obviously does need reliable sources to support it. But where the location of a settlement is stated in reliable sources to have been determined by pre-existing geographical features, it is absolutely right and meaningful to use a phrase such as "it is sited at..." in preference to less meaningful phrases such as "it is at..." or "it is located at...". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Starting the indents at the left again. I am about to have a go at removing some of the uses of located in the article to see what other editors think. Following PaleCloudedWhite I have substituted situated in places. situated may need removals. User:Argovian may wish to comment. SovalValtos (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Given there have been no more contributions to this discussion, I now intend to edit the sentence in the lead containing the word 'sited'.SovalValtos (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ludlow. 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) 10:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)