Talk:Barnes, London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. United Kingdom Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] external link

The link to BarnesSW13 is a bit funny - the link shows the site is monitoring the use of the link. Is this against wikipedia policy, is it considered advertising? Jfr26 22:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be against policy if it isn't already.. The barnes-online site isn't exactly relevant either. Despite the name, there's very little that's Barnes-specific on it - it seems to be mainly about Richmond-upon-Thames / the Richmond Park constituency and the council. Also, not sure the negative section on North Barnes at the top deserves so much prominence.. What do others think?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.22.123 (talk • contribs).

The relevant guideline here, IMHO, is WP:EL (and, I suppose, WP:NOT). To be sure, the referral tracking is wholly inappropriate in view of WP:SPAM's proscription against external link spamming, inasmuch as, in its ertswhile fashion, the link existed, we can safely infer, primarily to solicit traffic; I modified the link in order that the provenance of site hits should not be tracked. The question of whether we ought to include the link at all is a closer one. Because the site would seem to contain neutral and accurate material (even as the site ostensibly advocates that one partake of the activities there enumerated, many of those activities are non-commerical, and, in any event, certain activities, at least vis-à-vis others, are not treated tendentiously) and be a relevant web directory (as, for example, might be a link to a given Chamber of Commerce for an American city; we don't tend to look with such links with disfavor), I can abide its inclusion, even as the site does seem to exist as advertising or to promote products or services; I will understand, though, if others disagree and think the link ought to be removed straightaway. Joe 03:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deleted vandalism

Have deleted the following:

The pub is noted for the very poor service and a very rude bar manager.

--Technopat 19:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like that vandalism is back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.56.252 (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not vandalism - it is a statement of fact and therefore is to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.176.152 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is actually not relevant in an encyclopaedia. In any case, such a statement about a living person needs to be backed up by reliable sources - see WP:BIO. Thanks. Kbthompson (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)