Jump to content

Talk:Puzzlewood

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not verifiable

[edit]

I could not verify these sections of the article. If it can be verified, please do add it back!

  • The confusing layout of paths can mislead people into seeing six bridges rather than the two that actually exist.
  • using the method of shallow trenches to get at the iron ore

--Pearrari 14:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien

[edit]

If anyone remember "The Old Forrest" where Frodo and the others meet Tom Bombadil this must surely be puzzlewood. Tolkien describes that they encounter deep trenches all over as if giant horsecarts had driven across the place (this is not an exact citation).--Honymand (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Andy,

I've reverted the copyright violation from the Puzzlewood website again. Compare, for example:

  • "Evidence of Roman occupation of the area is supported by the discovery of a hoard of over 3,000 3rd Century AD coins which were found in the scowles of Puzzlewood. Once the Romans left, nature reclaimed the old workings with moss and trees, to create the unique landscape. The historical use soon became forgotten, and the folklore of Puzzlewood began." (the article)
  • "Evidence of Roman occupation of the area is supported by the discovery of a hoard of over 3,000 3rd Century AD Roman coins which were found in the Scowles of Puzzlewood. Once the Romans left, nature reclaimed the old workings with moss and trees, to create the unique landscape. The historical use soon became forgotten, and the folklore of "Puzzlewood" began." (Puzzlewood's own website)

It looks like straightforward copyright vio. I've also added back in the broken link templates (as they're broken), and removed the claims based on the BBC website; it doesn't support the statement made in the text. I've added back in the citation needed tags as well; if you or another editor knows of sources to support the claims, I'd welcome them being added in. I've reinserted the "clarify" tag, as I simply don't know what the sentence is trying to tell the reader; again, someone else may know more about this. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: the copyrighted material seems to have been added in this edit originally. It's been taken directly from the site's literature etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why not simply reword the trivial text that's contentious? (I would also note that the oldest archive copy of the Puzzlewood site I can find is newer than WP's) Why remove all mention of the Romans, and a quite separate source?[1] Why remove the Star Wars filming (for which local people were dropping business cards in the local pub where the crew were staying, in the hope of getting work as an ewok, or a light sabre roadie) - just because the Beeb ref was from before the filming, rather than sources describing it from afterwards.
In what way did these bulk deletions improve the encyclopedia? Or why they were the only edit that could be made, rather than just the easiest? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation isn't allowed on the wiki, Andy - it's illegal and undermines the site. As noted above; the copyrighted material was cut and pasted in bulk four years ago, complete with copied subtitles, and clearly comes from the Puzzewood; I remember reading it on the boards at Puzzlewood originally, which is why I recognised it. The 19th century article, btw, doesn't quite match up with the account here; it refers to the wider area, and isn't specific about Puszlewood being where the coins were found. If you want to redraft the two paragraphs concerned, avoiding copyright violation, then of course you should feel free to do so.Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does this look like a WP:RS? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It supports the proposed statement - although the Daily Mail isn't typically a strong source, and it is unclear what is speculation and what is fact. Is there any clearer statement by the producers? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation isn't allowed on the wiki
Thankyou for informing me of that staggering news. I can't imagine how I was unaware of that before.
So reword it and do something constructive. Don't just blank sections because someone has given you an excuse to, before you flit off to another article to find to pull the wings off. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, there are better sources - [2], [3], [4], [5]. Someone should add them - perhaps Hchc2009 would like to do the honour? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They all confirm the Forest of Dean for certain, but say "may" or "could" be Puzzlewood, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[6]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be one I'd use myself in that form, but if another editor felt more confident about the claim, I wouldn't object. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC) NB: phone now rendered it properly! yep, looks good. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Puzzlewood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"Filming Location"

[edit]

Is it worth changing the existing paragraph here about what was filmed here into (perhaps) 2 bulleted lists: one of TV shows filmed, and one for Movies filmed?
I recently added mentions of another film (2020 - The Secret Garden) and 2 more TV shows, but I'm aware of at least a half dozen more that just be added and referenced. I also feel that the current formatting is a little mixed as well, as some properties are italicised and some are not, and some of the movies have quotation marks where others don't. TV episodes having quotation marks however, I can understand.
- Formalis (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - so long as you can find reliable sources (not existing Wikipedia pages) and include them. Per MOS:ITALIC, movie titles should be in italics. Go for it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thanks for the input (and Talk page notes). I'll gather the information, format it, then edit it into the article. Might not be for a day or two, so watch this space. Formalis (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13 January 2020 (UTC) - Okay, Filming Location has been totally rewritten, as per Ghmyrtle's forwarded links given to me on WP:REF and MOS:ITALICS. Criticism and adjustments/amendments are welcome, as are further additions that I've missed. - Formalis (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puzzlewood&oldid=1204963329"