Talk:Winsford

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. More photos need to be added.
  3. References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)

 DDStretch  (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents


Details on history of Winsford taken from "Winsford Official Town Guide 2006" and "It's All Over" by J. Brian Curzon, 2006 IantheLibrarian 22:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A Possible project (or sub-project) for Cheshire

I think a project or a sub-project (within the UK geography project) dealing with the whole of Cheshire would be a good idea. I have taken as a precedent the project about Cornwall, which any project dealing with Cheshire could hope to aspire to, since this project has constructed Featured Articles about Cornwall-related things. So, I've listed a proposed project concerning Cheshire on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. I think it can easily co-exist with Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. I would not want to diminish or withdraw from this other project. If you are interested in contributing to this proposed project, please add your name to list at the appropriate place. If you think it might be better placed as a sub-project of the existing UK Geography Project, please say so on that project's talk page, here, and let us discuss it. Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

I have added the names of the schools in Winsford. As far as I am aware, pages for these schools do not exist so they could be created now. I have also added the Winsford pubs. Jamesb1 15:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to provide pages for both Verdin and Woodford Lodge; I attend their joint sixth form, so I could obtain information easily. However, I'm not sure how easy it would be to find sources for the information Monkeymox 10:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Social & Economic Problems

I can't help feeling that the latest addition to Winsford is a little subjective. Should it be removed? Jamesb1 15:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it by reverting it. It had no citations, and was subjective. Consequently it was just unsupported opinion and, as such, was out of place in an encyclopedia. Even with appropriate citations, it might well be judged by others to be unsuitable for inclusion. - DDStretch  (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crown jewels

There are a number of rumours about the location of the crown jewels during WWII, but I can't find anything in "It's all Over" to support this one. Another citation needed? Salinae 22:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be an idea to try to move towards a situation where references are complete: i.e., amongst other things, they give full information, including the page numbers which are specifically being used when citing and verifying claims in the text? If this were insisted upon, then problems like this would be diminished a lot, I think. One can have any number of ways of doing this - see Runcorn, Hundreds of Cheshire, and so on, for examples of how to go about citing multiple places within a single given book. I'm sorry it doesn't help solve the specific problem here, though.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
That would work well in pinning down exactly where the justification for a claim came from, but would mean that ref's could almost never be reused. I think that ref's are one of the "elephant's in the corner" of Wikipedia and particularly the GA/FA review process. I would guess that almost no printed references (as opposed to web references) are ever checked as part of a review, and unless GA/FA reviews become proper peer reviews then this will never be the case. But I digress. I will take up that idea and put it into the changes I make to Middlewich following Espresso Addict's excellent review. Salinae 23:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winsford Christmas Lights

Is it really of encyclopaedic worth to list all the past light switcher-onners of Winsford!? I think not... What are other people's thoughts? Petepetepetepete (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Given what else needs doling in this article to bring it up to any shape at all, I think it is worthy of simple deletion. If people think otherwise, let it be a subsection of this talk page until other sections in the article are so comprehensive that some "icing on the cake" can be justified.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for the speedy response. I have removed them from the site and will add them here for future generations! Petepetepetepete (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Winsford Christmas lights

Winsford's Christmas lights are traditionally switched on towards the end of November by a celebrity from the world of popular entertainment.

[edit] Winsford Christmas Lights – the argument to keep the section

I introduced this section to serve as a record of which celebrities have been invited to switch on the Winsford Christmas lights. This list is not published in any other source -- it was carefully compiled and is accurate, subject to others being able to add in the missing entries for which I could find no information. User Petepetepetepete has attempted to delete the list without due consideration. It should be allowed to stand as it is a matter of factual record. There can be no logical reason to delete it, other than for over-zealous editing. By deleting it you are clearly expressing a form of censorship that does not accord with the compilation of an encyclopedia entry. It is part of the ephemeral history of Winsford -- a history that would otherwise go unrecorded, but is just as important in the portrayal of the town. You are correct to say the article needs a thorough overhaul, but deleting a factually accurate section, no matter how insignificant it may be perceived to be, is not the way to do it. This is my argument for reinstating the entry. In time it will add tone and depth to the article as the text continues to evolve – and that is what we should all be working towards achieving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodian (talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is not published in any other source, it cannot be verified, and certainly should not therefore be added. You need to read WP:V to appreciate how verification is at the heart of wikipedia. You cannot verify it yourself by your own say so, and the link I just gave you will explain more about this.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


You've misinterpreted my comment. To clarify: it is not published anywhere else in the list form in which I presented it here, but each individual entry is published across a range of public source material. I have collated the entries from those published sources (local newsprint, all verifiable online, as with the final referenced entry). This explanation should add further weight to the case for reinstatement, not deletion. In "real life" I'm a trained historian, and have published many non-fiction books, as well as contributing encyclopedia entries to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and to Microsoft Encarta – I do know what I'm talking about. If verification means referencing each individual entry, you tell me and I'll do it, but there seems little point if someone then arbitrarily removes the hard work. User:Rhodian (User talk:Rhodian) —Preceding comment was added at 22:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Rhodian; congratulations on your 'real world' accomplishments. As a history graduate myself, I know what a high level of understanding and application is neccessary to publish in such works. I am sure that you will be able to make a wide ranging and lasting contribution to the wider wikipedia project. Returning to bigger issues - Winsford's Christmas Lights - I feel that verifiability aside, the material is not encyclopaedic in the slightest! Does history really need to record the fact that Johnny - the Geordie fireman from Big Brother - once turned on Winsford's Christmas lights? This information is probably not suitable for wikipedia's entry on the town, especially, as DDStretch remarked when I first suggested the information should be removed, given the omissions of far more useful information on the town's current entry. It is certainly not worth the disproportionate amount of space it was previously occupying. A final issue is that many of the wiki links to the 'celebrities' in the original item are broken and lead to the wrong people; if a consensus is reached that the lights section should be brought back, we'll have to fix them. Petepetepetepete (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary, or perhaps even desirable to evaluate some addition to an article by looking at the credentials of the author. That much I know from my own extensive contributions within a variety of academic disciplines. I believe it is universally the case that all disciplines act so as to emphasize the quality of the verifiable sources that are open to public scrutiny as well as the evidence and arguments used to advance a position in order to assess the quality of any given contribution. I would be surprised if it was not the case within history (and in fact I know it is not). So, as it stands, the contribution was unreferenced, and therefore not capable of being checked in any way which was independent of the person advancing it here. Furthermore, the amount of time used to construct it (information acknowleged to be "ephemeral") would have been far better spent dealing with the gaps in other aspects of the article. As it is, its presence in the absence of other more substantive material tends to trivialize the entire article. It should not be included, in my opinion, until (a) each entry in it is referenced, AND (b) the more substantive content-holes in the entire article are plugged. Note that it has not been deleted entirely, but is in effectively a "waiting room" on this talk page. I suggest that Rhodian use the skills of a historian to add substantive material to the article, especially to sections relevant to the history of Winsford, as that would be of greater value at the moment.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the article needs to be structured alonmg the lines given in WP:UKCITIES, which it wasn't with the addition, and which it still needs working on when that section is removed.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Though I believe this material was added in good faith, I think it's fairly clear that this is at odds with several of Wikipedia's core priniciples, namely "verifiability", and "What Wikipedia is not", whilst possibly breaching trivia and notability standards too. On these grounds I'd have to also say that this material should go. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all your comments and advice, which I have enjoyed reading. While I cannot agree with all that's been said, I do feel I have gained a greater insight to the backroom ops of Wikipedia. It leaves me wondering why this list should be axed (albeit to a holding area), yet the lists of schools and religious places are allowed to remain. The schools' data is published in countless other better sources (eg Cheshire LEA website), and the religious sites entries are also available elsewhere. I could argue, by comparison with the Christmas Lights list, that these lists are equally not worthy of inclusion in this (or any) encylopedia. What is their value to a description of contemporary Winsford as they are currently presented here? I don't wish to progress this debate any further, so I'll leave it for others to pursue. I'm more than happy to carry on strengthening this, and other articles, as that's of benefit to us all. User:Rhodian (User talk:Rhodian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.253.232 (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)