Talk:Black Patch Park

Modifications and draft improvements to Black Patch Park article

Do the changes made in the article on Black Patch park conform more closely with good practice? I have removed references to uTube and various other possibly speculative sentences based on my connections with inhabitants and ex-inhabitants of the area which I realise, as primary sources, are not suitable for an encyclopaedia entry. I have also adjusted some references which were failing as hyperlinks to their cited source. All assistance including further references and information about Black Patch Park would be very much appreciated. Simon Baddeley 14:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that speculative materials are acceptable so long as they are noted as such. We have to work with the best available evidence, which is often a combination of conjecture and bits of evidence rather than complete documentation in black & white. However, I see that the prohibition on original thought probably applies to a lot of historical conjecture, which should result in hundreds/thousands of Wikipedia pages being flagged, edited or removed for proposing unsupported interpretations of available materials (i.e. historical analyses, e.g. original thinking).

As for sources, some initial suggestions: Formatting for inline references: "districts.(Ted Rudge 2003, p.5)." would be more correct missing out the first full stop and Ted's forename, like so: "districts (Rudge 2003, p.5)."
Would "arteries of the region's 'North West Corridor of Regeneration'" be much the same as The Arc of Opportunity or is the term more specific to Sandwell?
The statement about foundations and frontages might be substantiated in a couple of ways: comparative public domain photographs from ca.1900 and today, combined with references to OS maps (including out-of-copyright editions); reference to the booklet published by Avery about the changes to plant fabric, references to material at BLHA or possibly even online via Digital Handsworth. I know from direct conversation with and scholarly presentation by prominent industrial archaeologist who went into the foundations of Soho Foundry that it has changed much over time. But that would not be allowed here as it is not published by recognised authority. This applies only to Foundry though, so the issue of foundations and frontages may need restriction. We know that Benson Works is now just foundations, as is Smethwick Gas. I am not sure what site is indicated by 'frontages'.
The bit about Boundary and Hockley brooks can be partially sunstantiaed through reference to Victoria County Histories (available online).
The words between 'Kitchener Street to the east' and Midland Metro are superfluous to the story of the Park. These would be better off in the discussion of the Black Patch as a historical entity, as distinct from Black Patch Park (established 1911).
Did the Ray Plant attribution come via Ted, or his book?
The story about subscription for the park and Mrs. Pilkington is partly attributed to the Birmingham Playgrounds, Open Spaces and Playing Fields Society book, which should be referenced here. and so on. Hope that helps. e-tat 19:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

Since it seems that Black Patch Park and Black Patch are about the same subject, I have added merge tags to the articles. The only question seems to be which title to keep, which may require local knowledge. -- Nataly a 01:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of name

If you google "Black Patch" you get a lot of separate hits which could lead to disambiguation problems. I think "Black Patch Park" would be better and Ted Rudge - whose related website is linked on the Black Patch Park article - and who probably knows as much local history on this area has e-mailed me to say he agrees. Sibadd 22:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proceed

I shall start transferring the information in Black Patch to Black Patch Park as no-one has said it's not sensible.Sibadd 01:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

I have now almost completed the merging process with most of what appeared under Black Patch now merged into Black Patch Park Sibadd 08:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

I hope this is now satisfactory with a redirect from Black Patch to Black Patch ParkSibadd 10:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the merge tag from this page, since the merge has been performed. -- Nataly a 15:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demerging?

I haven't been here for a long while - and was unaware that any changes had been made. Shouldn't I be notified in some manner when this happens? In any case, I'm here to ask that the merging be reversed, since there's an important distinction between the Black Patch Park and its parent space, the Black Patch. This distinction should also show up on disambiguation pages, with the Black Patch (c18/19 industrial tipping ground & open space, Birmingham/Handsworth/Smethwick) and Black Patch Park/Recreation Ground (c20/21 public park, Birmingham/Smethwick) having their own entries. I'll check back again in the next week or so to see if there's been any response. e-tat 14:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up + References tags

I have tagged this article as 'cleanup' beacsue of unencylopedic wording (such as "To understand these developments in more detail, we go back to..."); and for citations, because statements like "As the population grew and settled around this proliferation of smokestack industries, tension grew between people...", "The Friends argue that it is difficult to overestimate the value of Black Patch Park as a place to learn to play and enjoy football" and "The Friends [...] are listened to by officers of the council" are not individually sourced. Andy Mabbett 00:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regional project

I have already raised with Erebus my reservations about this overarching approach to the West Midlands Area and would like to learn more about the project and who is involved before feeling comfortable with the rather arbitrary criteria being applied to this and other articles. i believe Wikipedia works best via collective iteration rather than through interventions into many articles within a region of a consortium opinion about what is best. Wikipedia encourages its contributors to arrive at best versions of the truth by constant rewriting and tweaking of what may be initially sketchy. Simply placing a label on an article suggesting it doesn't come up to a partcular standard of accuracy or reliability impugnes the integrity of a contributor striving to arrive at the truth via successive approximations. Simon Baddeley 02:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply placing a label on an article suggesting it doesn't come up to a partcular standard of accuracy or reliability impugnes the integrity of a contributor

As I said elsewhere, it doesn't. It's merely a 'house style' issue. The format in which it's currently written would be perfectly fine in a journal or paper (i.e sources cited at the end, but no specific location of individual statements). The reliability is backed up by, say, peer review and/or known authority of the author.

Here, anyone can be the author and there is no peer review, so it works differently. Reliability derives purely from the reliability of third-party sourcing, so it's the convention to do less synthesis, and organise material so that any statement can be tracked to the source from which it's quoted. For example, what's the source for the anecdote about Ray Plant? Where is it "said that deeds to this effect were destroyed when the king and queen's caravan was ritually burned after her death on 7 January 1907"? (Dog ate my homework?)

WP:RS gives an overview of what is considered reliable. This will help explain why people are getting jittery. For instance, I'm sure it's true that "The great surrounding factories including the Soho Foundry, started by James Watt and Matthew Boulton are, but for foundations and frontages, almost all gone", but a hyperlink to the Smethwick Local History Society doesn't support that statement. Tearlach 14:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Can anyone assist in getting the article on Black Patch park up to scratch? I need to be able to use it in debates and discussions about it's future but it's rather embarrassing sending people the URL while it remains threatened with deletion. Simon Baddeley 13:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I repeat my request for clearer guidance on spefically has to be done to this article to bring it up to Wikipedia standard? Should the whole article be removed or are there particular paragraphs or sections that need rewriting. I am finding the blanket criticism of the piece rather unhelpful. Simon Baddeley 10:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work on the article and removed the tags, but added "fact" tags where specific citations are needed. I suspect the will mostly be for Rudge's book or website. Please note the format of other references (especially second and subsequent occurrences) and replicate these if adding more Andy Mabbett 11:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help needed to clarify references and it is looking much better. Simon Baddeley 18:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Black Patch Park. 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) 10:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Patch Park. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060223060740/http://www.averyweigh-tronix.com/main.aspx?p=1.1.3.2&title=The+Soho+Foundry to http://www.averyweigh-tronix.com/main.aspx?p=1.1.3.2&title=The+Soho+Foundry

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) 16:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]