Jump to content

Talk:Wellingborough

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWellingborough 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
June 27, 2010Good article nomineeListed

History

[edit]

I've moved the following from the article text:

(Cues for future contributors with more time to hand: Economics -- boot & Shoe; Iron/Steel (xref Corby); 1980s slump; revival consequent on the development of the A45 and A14 M1-A1 link roads, which run to either side of the town.)

Silverhelm 11:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Why mention Naseby? It's a really tenuous link with the town. You may as well mention the battle of Northampton in 1460. It is geographically nearer. Or the fact that Castle Ashby was where Anne Stuart awaited news of the deposition of her father during the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Neither of which have anything to do with the town. Jatrius 21:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schools In the U.k

[edit]

I've removed a load of the information on Wellingborough school, mainly because it appeared to be a large portion of pompous opiniated mess. It's uneccesary, and I've added other local (larger) schools in. 782 Naumova 17:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be UnNecessary, and it may or may not have been opinionated but the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information, not to act out the wish-fulfillment of a faux class-warrior. This isn't policy for Eton College, Winchester, Rugby etc. so why do it here? Jatrius (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I live here...but can someone please tell me where the hell St. Columbus' School is??? 17 years I've been here and I've never heard of it!! Also possibly worth noting Sir Christopher Hatton School was previously known as Breezehill Girls School.

Information Centre

[edit]

For some reason or another Wellingborough is now without a Visiting centre. To the best of my knowledge it's the only town in England without one now. This could mainly be put down to the total lack of any reason to come here. The highlights of our town include having one of the ugliest shopping centres in the country, a Theatre and a river. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.168.201 (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Isn't there an information centre at the Library or the Heritage Centre which does the Visiting Centre sort of stuff? Agreed on the ugly shopping centre!

We also have the waendal(sp?) walk, which IMO is naff...

999 Services - Mental Health

[edit]

Wellingborough's mental health services are not based in Kettering General Hospital. Outpatient treatment is available through the CMHT located at Clarendon House, Station Road and inpatient treatment at St Mary's Hospital, London Road (Both in Kettering). ReformatMe (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2001 census

[edit]

Someone has changed the census to 72,000 but I'm confused beacuse this looks like the 2007 est and where the source is from and is it right?Likelife (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the change last night and it is correct for the borough. I checked here as I thought that it was an incorrect change probably should have added the reference as I had it to hand. Keith D (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts as it is the figure for the borough should we have a lower figure here (if we can source one) or indicate that it is for the borough as a whole? Keith D (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to the Wellingborough (borough) page it has 75,000 for the population. So I guess 72,000 is about right.Likelife (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a WikiProject on Northants

[edit]

Im thinking on creating a WikiProject on Northamptonshire but I would need some help and what do you think on this idea, please tell me on my talk page. Likelife (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and copyedting.

[edit]

Attention is needed the correct way to use and present citations in the reflist. This will significantly reduce the burden on copyeditors and the need to look up the web sites for verification. Particular attention is required to punctuation, capitalisation, and repeating of information. Where references are provided, to external documents or PFDs, fine details of the documents referenced do not need to be listed in the Wikipedia article. A lot of peacock terms and weasel words have been removed, together with some POV/non encyclopedic tone or expressions. Some large sections are still entirely unreferenced, and hence subject to removal.--Kudpung (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 16 are still not displaying correctly, particularly when using the same reference (18, 19) for several citations. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations gives an overview, but i'm not sure if it covers PDFs.--Kudpung (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain more as I cannot see a problem as it stands, even a version from earlier today looks OK. Obviously the references should be converted to use one of the {{Cite}} family of templates and need detail added like publisher, publish date etc. Keith D (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no specific need to use the templates, or to convert existing references to use them if the information is already displayed correctly - in fact it is often quicker to enter them manually, besides which, the templates use confusing American date forms that a re not appropriate for British articles. References in the reflist should not display bare URLs or just a number with an external link icon. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations gives clear instructions how to do this, and how to use the same ref several times.--Kudpung (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The templates are recommended and produce a consistent output. If a change of house style is required then a change in the template is replicated through all of the articles rather than having to go through all of the articles individually to change the style. It is much easier to apply the templates when there are few references in an article then have to go through lots when articles go on for review. Dates are not a problem as they are now output as you input them, was much better when the date auto-formatted to your preference but that was the decision and you end up having to format each one yourself. Keith D (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am of course aware of all this, I do however personally find it significantly easier and quicker to enter ref data manually, and will conntinue to do so where I am practically the sole author/editor of an (not this) article. Considtency is hence guaranteed and I can keep up with other contributions. However, the point I have been making here is that it would be great if other regular, multiple contributors to articles could at least adopt some of the basic rules for ref display, rather than relying on others to clean up.--Kudpung (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Geology & Iron ore

[edit]

This long section is completely unreferenced. The information is very detailed was obviously taken from somewhere and must therefore either be cited with verifiable references, or removed as possible original research. If adding references do take a look at the preceding discussion: Clean up and copyedting.--Kudpung (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what I can do, but it's the hardist thing to find.Likelife (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some but more is needed! Likelife (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

future

[edit]

Should the second paragraph of the economy section be moved to the future section? Likelife (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  17:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human peer review from Keith

[edit]

As requested a few comments from a look over page.

  1. DAB required for dip  Done --Kudpung (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DAB required for embankment  Done --Kudpung (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Reference 9 appears to be a rail booking site and does not mention Wellingborough  Done Likelife (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Reference 15 is a dead link  Done Likelife (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. References 36 & 38 appear to end up on the same page which does not seem to mention anything from the article about services/numbers.  Done Likelife (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are you sure? They end up on two complete different websites about sport. Likelife(talk) 17:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the numbering has changed since I wrote the comments, try 46 & 48 now, which are the Stagecoach pages under Transport. Keith D (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the numbering will have shifted beacuse I deleted a superfluous ref.--Kudpung (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Most of the references do not have publisher or publication date specified and reference 1 dies not even have a title.
  2. Distances and heights will need conversion - e.g. 11 miles in the lead  Done --Kudpung (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Makes it obvious" is a bit weasel.  Done --Kudpung (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There may be some problems with overlinking, though I must say I prefer the links that they usually remove such as France, Germany etc.
  5. "broach spire" could do with a wikilink.  Done --Kudpung (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The sentence "The current railway station ...." seems a bit convoluted, may be just split it after St Pancras.  Done --Kudpung (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Reference 19 - should that be ISBN?  Done Likelife (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. May be link "ward" in Governance section.  Done --Kudpung (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Governance appears to miss out on European representation.  Done Likelife (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Under "Local economy and amenities" the link Future Developments does not go anywhere.  Done --Kudpung (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The statement "Over 50 companies in the town employ between 100 to 500 people through a base of local companies and those that have arrived via inward investment." is unreferenced. rm it can't find a ref for it.  Done Likelife (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "possibly the largest number of screens per head of population in the country" could do with some justification. Also rm can't find ref for it. Likelife (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cannot put finger on it but I think the cinema names should be in italics like we do with pub names but cannot even find the bit about pubs in MOS:ITALICS  Done Likelife (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The Cinema & Theatre sections need some references Steady Need refs for Cinema. Likelife (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Under Theatre it needs clarifying - is the competition something to do with the festival or is there a sentence missing?  Done Likelife (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Airports "can be Retrieved by one" should this be "can be reached by one"?  Done --Kudpung (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. The paragraph on sport seems completely out of place under "Northampton University"  Done (moved) --Kudpung (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Under "Healthcare" A&E may be a problem either expand or put in brackets after first occurrence.  Done --Kudpung (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. May be worth adding a note on the air ambulance under "Healthcare"  Done Likelife (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Notable Wellingburians" several of those mentioned do not have references giving their association with the town, could also do with the links dabbing correctly for the football clubs
  21. The "Geology" section has a {{Citation needed}} tag;  Done --Kudpung (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Under "Iron ore" what does "around 25% wt/wt iron" mean?  Done Likelife (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Climate - a bit unsure about the usage of GBR in the heading
  24. "Twin towns" are both unreferenced.  Done --Kudpung (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. In the "See also" section some of the links need removing as they are used in the article, unless there is a specific reason for them to be there.  Done --Kudpung (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith D (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks enormously for that input Keith.
Anyone successfully addressing these points, PLEASE put this {{done}} ( Done) template against them. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worth adding alt text for the images now, though not necessary for GA it is a requirement for FA. Keith D (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Wellingborough. 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 20:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious references as to origins

[edit]

The source for the town being established by someone called Waendel is a dead link. In any case it's pure speculation. No Anglo-Saxon character of that name is recorded. 'Towns' weren't 'founded' in that place and time, rather settlements were established. I've removed speculation and dead link, and improved anachronistic language. asnac (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wellingborough. 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, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wellingborough. 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) 22:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Industry

[edit]

The only industry mentioned in the Wellingborough article is that of iron ore extraction--which was out of town. What do Wellingborough people do for a living now, and what did they do before they had the fast rail connection to London?

Large

[edit]

Wellingborough isn't a large town despite having 53k, it isn't yet at the large which is defined by government as being 60k-174k population but Wellingborough is still a way off yet so please don't readd large as I will revert it. Check an official definition before you argue it [1] DragonofBatley (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New lead edits @Johndane1965

[edit]

It has come to my attention that @Johndane1965 keeps adding "commuter" to the lead and removing civil parish which involves a town or parish council. I don't see why and it doesn't keep in sync with other Northamptonshire town articles. @Crouch, Swale, @AD Hope, @KeithD and @John Maynard Friedman. Thoughts? Is commuter town appropriate? DragonofBatley (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commuting is mentioned here but yes I'd say unless its important/commonly mentioned it doesn't need to be in the lead and to just keep town and civil parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boot and Shoe Making

[edit]

How strange that a town most steeped in the manufacture of boots and shoes has this hardly mentioned in the Wikipedia entry? 2A00:23C8:4986:1:B50D:9DEF:E9E4:BE5 (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wellingborough&oldid=1240656475"