Jump to content

Talk:Nailsea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNailsea has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 6, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
May 22, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Coates's cider

[edit]

It would be good to add something about the Coate's cider factory to this page. Does anyone have a reliable source that they could use? J Hawker (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find much apart from links with Adge Cutler who used to work there, but Haley (2005). Wordsworth Dictionary of Drink. Wordsworth Editions. p. 151. ISBN 1840223022. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |chapterurl=, |month=, |origdate=, and |coauthors= (help) does say: it was bought by Showerings of Shepton Mallet in 1956. And that the brand was later merged with Gaymers and absorbed by Matthew Clark Brands. Also the cider wiki (not WP:RS which says an oak vat from Coates was moved to Rich's Farmhouse Cider in Watchfield. I think the whole article should be revised in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements and then this could be brought into the history or economy sections?— Rod talk 19:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious sites

[edit]

I dispute the fact that "Nailsea is a largely Christian town, being approximately 78% Christian, with 'no religion' the second largest group with 16% of the population." This is clearly nonesense. There is no settlement in Britain (or elsewhere) where nearly 4 out of 5 people would claim to be a Christian. Conversely, there is no settlement where a mere 16% of the populus would describe themselves as being Aethiest. If these figures were true, then Nailsea would be a barren cultural and spiritual monoculture, which it is not! The truth of the matter is that about 5% of the British public purport to being a Christian. Nailsea is no different! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.69.33 (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The figures used for this (& correctly cited) are from the United Kingdom Census 2001. Do you have any published surveys or other data which would give a different view? There are towns in Britain where Christianity is no longer as dominant (eg Leicester where only 44.7% of the population declare themselves as christian). Therefore I feel it is an appropriate piece of information to include in this article and will help readers (from all over the world) to get a picture of what Nailsea is like.— Rod talk 21:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly the figures for the whole of England from the 2001 census show Christian: 71.75%, No Religion: 14.81% (see Demography of England for more) so in this respect Nailsea is fairly typical of England as a whole.— Rod talk 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point about the 2001 Census returns. However, there is a world of difference between what people wrote in response to that misleading question and the reality of what happens in church on a sunday morning - as statistics produced by the Church itself reveals (see [1]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.105.223 (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Would it not be possible to change the wording of the section in question, so that it states that the percentages given are derived from the census? Something like this:
In the 2001 census 78% of Nailsea's respondents claimed 'Christianity' as their religious preference, with 16% of respondents claiming 'no religious preference', the second largest group.
This would emphasise the relatively old source, and the fact the data comes from a census, allowing readers to form their own conclusions as to its reliability. --ThisSpace (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable & I have changed to the text you suggested - just adding wikilinks & improving the citation of the sources.— Rod talk 20:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distance from Bristol?

[edit]

In the lead it says Nailsea is about 7 miles from Bristol & in geography 8 miles - surely they should both be the same if it is to be repeated.— Rod talk 18:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What else is needed to get this article to GA?

[edit]

I've been looking at the guidelines at WP:UKCITIES and would be interested in what other editors think is need to get this article to meet the Wikipedia:Good article criteria? Obviously we need to reference (or remove) the uncited claims, but is there anything else which would be required?— Rod talk 09:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up for it. I think that the Education section and the Sport section would need a small extention with more references (I'll get to that later) and some extentions on the article all together (there seems to be some layout issues). But other than that the articles looks fine. However, the history of the town seems to be a bit small and the Governance doesn't have any citations at all. I'll be happy to help out as soon as possible but those are the things that would need to be mentioned anyway. Jaguar (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I've added some references for the governance section. What layout issues are you seeing?— Rod talk 20:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might just be me on my eighteen mile long monitor but I have minimised the window and still see a few images taking up some numurous sections. For example photo of the church does take up a couple of headers in the Religious Sites section which might cause a few layout issues for some people but it shouldn't matter too much. A few prose extensions in the article could sort them out; I will be happy to extend them but other than that the article looks great! Jaguar (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nailsea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nailsea&oldid=1207669250"