Talk:Seaton, Devon

Fair use rationale for Image:Arms-seaton.jpg

Image:Arms-seaton.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Negative...

I feel that the article about Seaton Devon is a little negative and sparing in detail. user:femalegeeK —Preceding comment was added at 16:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need people to understand external links - what is and is not acceptable.

Please read and understand WP:ELNO, which sets out why certain external links should not be included in Wikipedia articles. Seaton has far too many links, there is no right number, but there are certainly some that don't belong. For example seatonbay.com just exists to promote the town and its tourist-related businesses. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, that's what Wikitravel is for. The same is true for seatonbusinessforum.com, which is a business directory and blog. If you read WP:ELNO you will see that both of these are links that are not recommended. Where such links might be of interest then a link to DMOZ can be added. This is what has been done to the article. Please don't go adding links and get into a silly edit war. If you want to know if a link is acceptable then discuss here and let's get other editors involved from related wikiprojects. --Simple Bob (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Railways

I write this as a person interested in railways: I was rather startled to read in this article the date of closure of the railway engine shed being closed. Is this a key piece of information for someone wanting more information about Seaton? Afterbrunel (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moderated the "anorak" part of this. Afterbrunel (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412150054/http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/neighbourhoods-villages/devontownprofiles/seaton_devontown.htm to http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/neighbourhoods-villages/devontownprofiles/seaton_devontown.htm

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) 08:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]