Talk:Aylesbury
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to places in the UK. If you wish to contribute you can visit the project page where there are resources & guidelines, to do lists and discussions. | |
| This article has been rated "start" on the Wikipedia Version 1.0 quality scale. | ||
|
On the project page you can find detailed guides on how to write about counties and settlements, as well as where to find statistics, references and other useful things. Additionally, the following has been identified as specific improvements this article needs:
|
||
[edit] Complete Outdoors?
Is it just me, or is this an advert for a commercial organisation on Wikipedia?
If anyone else thinks it should be removed or altered, note your comments here.--82.32.105.240 18:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- It was blatant advertising; I have removed it. -- Roleplayer 22:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Page name
This page belongs at Aylesbury and should be moved back, as the Aylesbury in England is the main use of the term. There has already been an extensive discussion about this subject at Talk:Exeter. G-Man 19:20, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) says that in general, there are no special naming conventions for cities and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) indicates that the "priority" issue is not a policy but still under discussion. I think that equal disambiguation is a vastly superior approach, but if you wish to revert my changes I won't muck around. Penfold 20:17, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)
I think the general rule is (as I understand it) that if one place or use of a term is the most well known or most linked to, it should have the name space to itself and provide a link to a disambiguation page for other uses, at the top or bottom of the article.
So for instance London in England is the most well known London in the world, and so has the 'London' name all to itself, but has a link to a disambiguation page for other Londons. The same is true for Boston in America even though there is a place called Boston in England.
Of course nothing is set in stone, its a case of judging each case by it's merits. But in this case seem as all the links go to the Aylesbury in England and it s the most well known Aylesbury in the world, it really belongs in it's own namespace G-Man 20:43, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the point of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) is that there aren't any rules as yet. In addition, I think assigning priority as in the examples of London and Boston is not the way to build an encyclopedia free from anglo-centrism or americo-centrism (if that's the word). And where there are multiple uses of a name, I think the default should be to show all the available options. But as I said, I'm not prepared to get into a fight over it. Penfold 21:04, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)
What matters is how articles link to it. There were 40 articles linking to the Buckinghamshire one, and a couple linking to the Canadian one. Likewise Paris should be about the french capital. I hardly think you can call that anglocentric. Morwen 21:10, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- No, that would be Euro-centric, which is equally undesirable. You surely can't be arguing that significance or priority should be determined by number of Wikipedia links? Given that Wikipedia is a) incomplete, and b) rather skewed in terms of the topics present, the number of links seems to be a measure of merit without any merit whatsoever. I'd take your point if I'd left broken Wiki links all over the shop, but I didn't. Penfold 12:59, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)
If you're interested Penfold we had a big argument about this subject a few months ago about Exeter. Between User:Mintguy and User:BRG, over whether Exeter should be a disambiguation page or about the Exeter in England, and it was eventually decided that it should be the Exeter in England. So I am merely going by the precedent set there.
If you want to see the details of the argument try looking at User talk:Mintguy and User talk:BRG. G-Man 21:27, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, although I'm still having difficulty reconciling what Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) says versus comments tucked away on talk pages. But the Exeter discussion was a terrible argument. Aylesbury is no Paris or London, or even Exeter or Durham. It was also argued that 'most users will want to look at Exeter'. I've always found that attempting to second-guess users is a very poor strategy, and I fail to see how the 'principle of least surprise' is an appropriate guide for the content of an encyclopedia. However, I see that the reversion has been made, so this all academic I suppose. I won't muck around with that but I'm happy to keep on whining here. Penfold 12:59, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Anne Boleyn
"The infamous Anne Boleyn:" only an Irish Catholic would say that. The Papacy had many reasons to declare her marriage null and void and the Protestant monarch a bastard. Infamous indeed. Wetman 23:15, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- I thought she was generally unpopular as a person anyway. She was certainly unpopular as far as the English general public were concerned at the time. -- Graham :) | Talk 23:25, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Depending on how you were taught English history, Anne Boleyn could certainly be considered infamous- Irish Catholic or otherwise. At my school we covered the Tudor period in a lot of detail and the name of Henry VIII's wife who was mentioned the most by far was Anne Boleyn.
