Jump to content

Talk:Bourne, Lincolnshire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Population reference

[edit]
[edit]

There is a link from the population reference in the infobox to a pdf file called 'Statistics about Bourne, South Kesteven' . The end of this document contains a blood-curdling copyright notice about 'The Click-Use Licence'. Does that mean it is OK to link to this document or not? (Note: the banner shown is not entirely apprpriate: it talks about there being no source - my query is about a source, but no more appropriate template appears to exist within wikipedia) Brunnian (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Un referenced additions

[edit]
There is a tradition that Bourne once had a castle but the evidence is flimsy because it was not mentioned in the Domesday Book of 1086 and is not recorded in subsequent documentation of castles built in England after the Norman Conquest. Hills and other undulations in the Wellhead Gardens, the town’s park, have been taken to indicate a battlemented fortification but there have been no serious attempts at excavation and recent digs that have claimed to have found evidence were little more than the laying of cables and drainage pipes. Historians in the early 20th century claimed that excavations in 1861 unearthed evidence of a castle but recent research has revealed that this was not a serious attempt at archaeology, merely a few men with shovels lifting off the top soil as a side or entertainment for the annual meeting of the Lincoln Diocesan Architectural Society whose members were anxious to see something but a flavour of the occasion can be gleaned by the fact that visitors were entertained by a brass band. The existence of a castle therefore relies on assumption and opinion instead of evidence and excavation. There may be stonework beneath the surface of the Wellhead Gardens but it is more likely to be that from dwellings and other buildings that comprised the settlement that sprang up around the source of water at St Peter's Pool rather than a battlemented fortification.

The above contentious nonsense has been inserted into the article.

The absence of any mention of Bourne castle in the Domesday Book is not at all surprising since it was not built until more than fifty years after the book was compiled. If it had been there in 1086, the castle would still not have been mentioned since the book was a database of sources of income so that the king would know where to go for money when he needed it. Castles were sinks of expenditure; the commissioners were not interested in them. The exception to this rule is in towns where there was a discrepancy between the numbers of town properties before and after the Conquest. In places like Lincoln and Stamford, the demolition required to make way for the castles is mentioned simply to explain the discrepancy.

The excavation made in 1860 of which the report was published in 1861 was done in the manner of such things at that time. The report includes what was for its time a good plan of what was found and of the castle site as it was at the time. The gate excavated was not demolished until about 1805 so there were a few people who could describe it. The site was described by Leland in the 1530s and by a man called Peek (Peak) in around 1500. The latter is quoted by Moore and by Marratt in their respective early nineteenth century books. It is all pretty well consistent with what is to be seen by way of earthworks today. The brass band had nothing to do with the excavation or report, merely to do with the visit of the Architectural Society to see the excavation while it was open.

The main archaeological information comes from a pipe trench which was observed by a professional archaeologist who drew a perfectly adequate section along it. That section gives a good deal of information such as the nature, thickness and position of the inner bailey curtain wall, clear indications of at least four phases and the width of the inner bailey moat. One somewhat surprising outcome of the excavation was a nearly complete absence of indication of pre-castle occupation of the site. However, another excavation did suggest some restricted occupation to one side of the central castle site before the time of the castle.

The castle has played a dominant part in determining the layout of the town. There is no room to doubt its presence in one form or another, from about 1140 to the nineteenth century. Even now, anyone who is not determined not to see them can hardly avoid seeing the signs in the form of parch marks, pools of water, ridges, hollows and the layout of open waterways: not least, in the way the town accommodates itself to the former castle.

I propose reversion. (RJP 21:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

There being no response to the above, the offending section has been removed. (RJP 23:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Incidents

[edit]

Why has this section been added? The contributor is anonymous. The material is irrelevant and worthless, as it is no more than gossip, with no names, dates or references. It needs to be removed, and in no sooner than twenty-four hours I will do so. Sweetalkinguy 23:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section is now removed. Some pupils of Bourne Grammar School are so prolific at interfering with the "Bourne, Lincolnshire" entry that editing rights from the school computers are suspended by the Wikipedia powers that be. Sweetalkinguy 23:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes trouble

[edit]

The notes section duplicated the references made to it. By taking out the reference which was in the info box, I have put it right but why, I don't know. I am storing the offending link here for any one who can, to put it right. [1] (RJP 11:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)) It now seems to have put itself right. (RJP 07:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Updating

[edit]

The article is getting much-needed expert input.

I have reverted the headings in the Local Government section, principally because it stands out better in the table of Contents at the top of the article. I have also massaged what I wrote earlier in with the later additions so that there is more explanation there, without the reader having to look up another article. I have put in the bit about Coats of Arms because I have pictures of the current and South Kesteven Arms for inclusion.

I will beef up the section about the railways, as I have some pictures to add. I have other pictures. The Wikipedia format allows for a subsidiary page of illustrations, there is sufficient material to make it worthwhile.

The Wikipedia guidelines are useful in general terms, but should not be seen as a rigid straightjacket. The article will need some re-arranging and editing out of duplicated information. The objective is to apply the guidelines to the article and end up with a top rating. Compared to articles about other local settlements, we are well on the way.

Guy 01:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motorsport section

[edit]

The in depth history of the teams and drivers belongs in the relevant articles, as this is about the town. And secondary items should be just covered im summary with a clear link to the main article. see WP:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements.

The section removed is here:

  • (But from memory is already in the linked article any way, but if not wants integrating in there)

In 1962 Graham Hill won the world championship in a BRM, the first British driver to win in an all-British car. The BRM team won the Constructors' Championship, and also that year's team prize at the BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards. Motor racing fans believed this would be the start of a new era for the sport and by 1965, the company had 100 employees in Bourne. 1965 was another successful year when BRM cars gained either a first or second prize in eight of the ten Grand Prix races that were held. Graham Hill was second in the World Championship for the third successive time (1963/4/5)and Jackie Stewart finished third in his debut season. BRM were also runners-up in the Constructors' Championship for the third time in a row. Meanwhile BRM cars won four successive Monaco Grand Prix from 1963 to 1966 including 1st and 2nd finishes in 1963 and 1964 and 1st and 3rd finishes in 1965 and 1966.

However the change of engine capacity for the 1966 season from 1.5 litre to 3.0 litre spelt the beginning of a long decline. Graham Hill left at the end of the 1966 season to go to BRM's great rivals, Lotus, and Jackie Stewart left at the end of 1967 to go to Matra. After that, the cars had mixed fortunes until the Mexican driver Pedro Rodriguez scored a comeback victory in the 1970 Belgian Grand Prix at Spa. There were further successes in Austria and Italy in 1971 with a final victory at BRM's happy hunting ground of Monaco in 1972 but as the sport became the province of heavy commercial sponsorship, advancement was dogged by mechanical failures and lack of resources. The team ceased to compete after 1977.

In all, BRM won seventeen Grands Prix between 1959 and 1972, the successful drivers apart from Hill (10), Stewart (2) and Rodriguez were Jo Bonnier, the tragic Jo Siffert, Peter Gethin and finally, Jean-Pierre Beltoise.

Soon after Mays died in 1980, Rubery Owen decided to sell the BRM collection of racing cars. The sale created international interest when it took place during the Motor Show at Earl's Court, London, in October, 1981.

The section could do with being split into a brief bit about each team separately then use {{main|Link to team article}} to link clearly indicating an in depth article is available with more details.

Unable to fix it a this time but thats why i removed it as over weight / in appropriate for this article - BulldozerD11 (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into this article of Bourne Westfield Primary School

[edit]

This was decided by consensus on 6 October 2010: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bourne Westfield Primary School. I have edited the article into a tidy package of a few paragraphs and added it under the Education subheading. If you must delete any of it, please aim to preserve the section about the archaeological site if possible, as this information is now mentioned nowhere else on Wikipedia, and is an important part of the local history and geography of the area. Thank you.

I had better add that in my opinion the decision to merge was unwise, as the Bourne Westfield Primary School article is a hefty piece of text with many references, and this Bourne article was already too full and already needed a split. My fear is now that the Bourne Westfield Primary School article content is now at risk of destruction; not because the content is faulty or un-encyclopaedic, but because there is no room for it in the Bourne article. I strongly suggest that the decision to merge be re-considered. --Storye book (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have closed the review as no consensus and cannot see why the article failed to meet the WP:GNG. Keith D (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised with how it was closed too, though I would've favored merge. I posted this at the Bourne Westfield Primary School talk page as well. Once any article reaches a 32 kb it starts giving the "split" notice. It should not be interpreted to mean the article is too big (see WP:LIMIT#No need for haste); it is more to let editors know that if possible, some sections could be spun off into "daughter" articles. Perhaps, eventually, an article called "Education in Bourne, Lincolnshire" could be spun off since the UK does not have the equivalent of a school district article that US city articles do. When I first saw the concern about this article being too large, I thought it was perhaps well over 100 or 100 kb. While 55 kb is a good-sized article, it is in no danger of being too large. In looking at this article, it could actually stand to be larger since quite a bit of it is just lists and the lead is one sentence long. On the flip side, it also has far too much info on each of its notable natives and residents (only a very brief—like 1 sentence—statement of notability is needed, not a small paragraph for each), plus its picture gallery should be removed as well and many (pretty much all) of the external links need taken out. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

[edit]
Talk page contents of merged page

Deletion proposal

[edit]

I am puzzled by the proposal for deletion. Why pick on this one and not, for example, Walton Girls High School or Bubwith Community Primary School or Woodside Primary School - or, for that matter, Lincoln Primary School or Fuhua Primary School. No such objection has been raised for the members of Category: Primary schools in London.

There is a whole structure of school descriptions, because this is an encyclopaedia, and surely it is meant to be encyclopedic? An incomplete data struture is not as good as a complete one.--Brunnian (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear recommendation reached by consensus of Wikipedia editors that primary (elementary) schools are only notable if they have some special reason to be, such as for example, being exceptionally old, or of unusual architectonic value, or having received a top important national or international award for academic or sport acievement, or were attended by several pupils who rose to become very prominent persons. A good encyclopedia only contains articles of encyclopedic value. We are aware that many articles slip through the net, and primary schools that do not meet our criteria are regularly deleted as soon as they come to our notice. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF for more details.--Kudpung (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care. It's only a web site. Delete away, the school will still be there. I hope you enjoy what you have helped created. --Brunnian (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wonder if you could link me to the "consensus of Wikipedia editors that primary (elementary) schools are only notable if they have some special reason to be" as I have checked WP:WPSCH and its links and cannot find it. In other areas of wikipedia, consensus has been reached to keep similar articles, such as disused railway stations, or small villages or hamlets because they are notable as they almost always appear in several references (WP:HASREFS). Scillystuff (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing to improve the article

[edit]

I have begun to research and edit this article with a view to improvement, indicating notability and possibly saving the article from deletion. Work is currently ongoing to provide a suitable photograph, and to locate appropriate citations for the more recent awards, which are not yet mentioned on the school's website. The school itself approves of this move, and is cooperating as far as possible. Besides this, I am aware that the school is the successor to a previous (and probably historical) institution, that it is probably near or associated with the historical Car Dyke, and that there are other notable matters which - since I only started today - I haven't even begun to research. Therefore I shall try to find the work-in-progress banner template, and ask you to please bear with us and not delete the article while we work on this. Thank you.--Storye book (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was merged with Bourne, Lincolnshire on 7 October 2010

[edit]

To administrator: please check that the merge has not been deleted from the above destination article before you delete this source article. I am particularly concerned that the archaeological site information should be preserved on Wikipedia with full references.

This merger was an irresponsible idea in my opinion, as the Bourne, Lincolnshire article is now 55 kilobytes long, and carries a notice in edit mode asking for a split! I think that the merge should be re-considered, otherwise the regular editors of the destination article will in due course be obliged either to delete the merged material, or to split it to create a separate article on Bourne Westfield Primary School - and we'll be back where we started.

Thank you for your cooperation.--Storye book (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once any article reaches a 32 kb it starts giving the "split" notice. It should not be interpreted to mean the article is too big (see WP:LIMIT#No need for haste); it is more to let editors know that if possible, some sections could be spun off into "daughter" articles. Perhaps, eventually, an article called "Education in Bourne, Lincolnshire" could be spun off since the UK does not have the equivalent of a school district article that US city articles do. When I first saw the concern about the Bourne article being too large, I thought it was perhaps well over 100 or 100 kb. While 55 kb is a good-sized article, it is in no danger of being too large. In looking at the Bourne article, it could actually stand to be larger since quite a bit of it is just lists. It also has far too much info on each of its notable natives and residents (only a very brief statement of notability is needed, not a small paragraph), plus its picture gallery should be removed as well. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tidyup

[edit]

I have reduced the gallery and two of the other images to thumbnails, and distributed most of the gallery into the text as per WP, also to reduce the filesize of the page by 2KB. I removed three of the gallery images, but they are still accessible via the media link box at bottom right of the page. I checked every image, including the removed ones, to make sure that they were correctly categorised on Commons - so as to link them with the aforesaid media box. There is one image remaining - File:BourneRedHall.jpg - which needs to be transferred to Commons and properly categorised there. I am hoping that someone else can do this task, as I find the process difficult.--Storye book (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

substituted [:File:The Red Hall, Bourne - geograph.org.uk - 1575134.jpg]] --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Lincolnshire Research Observatory / Office for National Statistics, "Statistics about Bourne, South Kesteven."

Merged

[edit]

In my opinion the AfD outcome was perfectly well evaluated, an excellent compromise, and there are no reasons to doubt or criticise the closing admin's good faith - that's what we have admins for, though not all of them might share the same thresholds of inclusionism/deletionism. JonRidinger has left almost exactly the same comments as I was about to make about how the the target page can now be improved, and possibly even pushed to GA.--Kudpung (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems somewhat farcical that swooping critics can dump the contents of an article they do not like in-line in this one. They havn't done the same with the Abbey school. The information remains on WP . I can't see for the life of me what has been gained by removing it as a page and yet adding it here, where it is essentially over-represented. How very odd.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Robert EA Harvey: I agree that the article about the school should not have been deleted, and I think that the WP guideline on this is wrong. However there was nothing I could do about that, once the decision was made to delete it. I moved the article bodily here, because the article would otherwise be entirely deleted from mainspace, and there is useful information in it, representing hard work by a number of Wikipedians. I think that articles about schools are in the public interest, because people research local history and family history, and all the schools represent part of this. You say that the information remains on WP, but to my knowledge it is not in mainspace, other than in this article. I would like to see the original article about the school reinstated and the Bourne article returned to its previous state, but I am told that this is not practicable. If you have a better idea about how to deal with this problem, please let us know. --Storye book (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Railways

[edit]

There never was a GN line from Essendine to Sleaford. The Essendine-Bourne and Bourne-Sleaford routes were built separately, and timetabled separately until the end of passenger services on widely different dates.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Bourne and Sleaford Railway & Essendine#The_railway --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Bourne Abbey Church of England Academy

[edit]

I have suggested that Bourne Abbey Church of England Academy be merged to this article as the I don't believe the school meets the notability thresholds for schools. Atlas-maker (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bourne, Lincolnshire. 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) 02:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bourne, Lincolnshire. 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) 04:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bourne, Lincolnshire. 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) 10:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bourne,_Lincolnshire&oldid=1217383676"