Talk:Congleton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Assessment Report

  1. Article needs to be expanded using Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements as a guide.
  2. References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. (See WP:References, [[WP:V], and WP:CITE for guidance.)

 DDStretch  (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Contents


A disambiguation page might be necessary: Congleton is both a town and a borough. (Added on 21:24, July 6, 2005 by User:82.36.232.110)

Done!  DDStretch  (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


I am pretty sure the actual rhyme, or atleast another rhyme(seemingly the main rhyme) Not the rubbish that is on the wiki page now....and the 1 the council uses on its informational boards. Is... "Congleton rare, Congleton rare, Sold the Town Bible to buy a new bear." Apart from on a council informational board within congleton, this can also be found on www.econgleton.co.uk. So if some one wants to change it...or add both.? --Duncan2688 20:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The repeated addition of Gerry Tobin to the Notable Residents section

Adding Gerry Tobin to the Notable Residents section is not really appropriate. If one reads WP:NN, especially WP:NN#Notability is not temporary, one sees the following sentences:

Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest.

Similarly, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information has, as point 5, the following sentences:

News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately.Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews.

It also contains the following footnote:

The briefer the appearance of a subject in the news, the lower the likelihood of creating an acceptably comprehensive encyclopedic biography. In order to help keep articles concise, efficient, and on-topic (and to help reduce privacy concerns), editors are invited to consider whether, in a particular article, the names of specific individuals could be redacted without the loss of non-trivial information or necessary clarity. Even when news events themselves merit an encyclopedia article of their own, additional biographies of person(s) involved may not be necessary, for instance, where they largely duplicate relevant information.

Consequently, I am kindly asking User:82.2.152.193 to refrain from adding this information a third time, after it has been removed on two occasions.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)