Talk:Cilgerran

Description Section

Hi Tony :)

I would suggest the fact it was a 'parish' and a 'formerly incorporated market town' and gives its name to 'The Hundred of Cilgerran' would be more appropriate in the history section rather than the description section. It makes it clear and concise. Also, I understand the Commote is Emlyn Is-Cych rather than the name used in the current article.

Furthermore, the name of the Baptist chapel should be Penuel rather than the current name while the name of the Congregational chapel should be Ty Rhos rather than the current name.

The CADW ID for Penuel is Source ID: 14497. The CADW ID for Ty Rhos is Source ID: 14532.

Cheers!

To editor 109.148.55.157: First of all I'd like to make the friendly suggestion that you have a look at these before diving too deeply into editing:

(1) One of my objections to your edits was that you deleted a reference to GENUKI, which is generally thought to be accurate and a useful onward source.

(2) the lead section is not a description section; it is intended to be a summary of the whole article (they often fall short of this, though), so information in there is fine (and usually useful) provided it appears in the article.

(3) You are right about Penuel chapel; I think Ty Rhos comes under Rhoshill? I will check on that, as there is another (closed) chapel in Cilgerran.

(4) Cych and Cuch seem to be interchangeable, and one is as good as the other.

(5) Afon Plysgog is unlikely to ever have its own article, so doesn't need to be red-linked.

These are reasons why it would be helpful to look at the above links. I can only advise that you take your time with editing. There seems an awful lot to do (and there is!), but the process is not as simple as it may seem at first. Your rush of editing rang warning bells - that can happen - I'm happy though that in your case it's keenness rather than disruptiveness. Sorry, that wasn't meant to sound patronising!

But thanks for responding to my initial approach. If there's anything I can help you with, just let me know.

Best wishes, Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor 109.148.55.157: I misread your comment on the chapels, sorry. Also I forgot to say - please sign your talk page edits with four tildes (~~~~). Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony,

Thanks for taking the time to reply :)

I will read what you've suggested.

It is my intention to raise the standard of articles rather than be disruptive.

Cheers :) 109.148.55.157 (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great - look forward to that. Another tip: indent comments on talk pages using increasing numbers of colons (I don't always get it right myself!) Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small

Gareth - not sure I like just a small. Is it, by Pembrokeshire standards, with a population of 1,500. Cheers! Tony Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! I was quoting the very old reference, but you are (as nearly always) correct. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 11:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only nearly? :o)) Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quarrying

WT79 The Engineer: The quarrying information is interesting, though I'm finding the formatting a bit confusing, but am not interfering (as it is obviously work in progress) other than moving it down the article for balance. At the same time I wondered whether it would be better as a separate article, with just a para in the village article. What do you think? Cheers, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WT79 The Engineer: I have added this ref to the end of the text on slate quarrying; I don't know whether it adds any info that you say is lacking. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WT79 The Engineer: Another ref which may interest you. It mentions Cilgerran numerous times. I'm sure this warrants its own article. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony Holkham: Sorry for confusing formatting; I'm guessing that this is due to the usage of a wikitable – I personally prefer tables to lists, because it allows for multiple columns of data, when there is not enough data about each quarry to justify a section for each. This is no more than personal preference, feel free to suggest other methods of presenting the data which might have an easier format for editing.

No objections to the proposed split; although the overall article size is not big enough to justify a split, the proportion of article space taken up with that subject is slightly excessive. I shall start a draft article at Draft:Slate quarrying at Cilgerran, so do not expect to make any further changes to this article before a straightforward removal of the quarrying section, and modification of the relevant links in lead and history sections. WT79 ^{(Speak to me | account info)} 14:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I wasn't thinking of the split in quantitative terms, but because of balance, as you say, and the fact that it is notable in itself. We could possibly incorporate some of the quarrying history into the village history as a subsection, or leave a precis of the section as it is without the table. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony Holkham, Gareth Griffith-Jones, Mattcymru2, and The Mirror Cracked: Just checking for consensus on split; editors chosen by page stats per xtools, so sorry if I have included people for which this page is completely irrelevant. WT79 ^{(Speak to me | account info)} 16:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking me. Well done for your excellent work on slate quarrying.
Generally, I have always had an aversion to splitting up articles. To me, there is no value in doing so here. The question is, would Cilgerran be improved? I think not.
Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know I raised the possibility of a split in the first place, but I don't feel very strongly either way, except to say that I wouldn't like to see the village article swamped by one topic, which it looked like it might be. Sorry if that's sitting on the fence. I suppose it depends how much more there is to say about quarrying in Cilgerran… Tony Holkham (Talk) 18:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony Holkham: I understand this viewpoint – new articles should not be created purely for new articles' sake, if they do not contain suitable amounts of content. I would personally say that, unless we end up with sudden extreme amounts of contributions from many editors that we haven't seen yet, there can be considered to be as much to say about the quarries around Cilgerran as we want to say; even before we start looking into individual quarries, there is still no info about geology (still looking through that ref – thanks), and the history is still cut somewhat short (will probably also be able to expand on that with new sources). If we're going to split it into individual quarries, there is a lot still to say, as each ownership change, or accident (presumably Cilgerran, like most places, had them occasionally) is worthy of mention in each article. I think that, if the only factor limiting the split is potential article size, then a split should be encouraged. WT79 ^{(Speak to me | account info)} 07:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find adherence to 'How to write about settlements' [[1]] can resolve some problems such as this. The quarries could have carefully allocated coverage in History Economy and Geography. Other 'principal occupations' which have not been developed so far are Farming and Salmon fishing. When they get to be covered the balance may be righted, though as the raison d'être of the settlement was quarrying for a while it is not unreasonable to cover it in depth. I do find the quarry location table inelegant but regret I cannot suggest a better 'text & link' version. Sorry to be so unhelpful.SovalValtos (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, the voices of reason, Gareth and SV, so thank you. I must admit to not having looked at that how-to article for some time, and as Gareth asks, where is the value in splitting? Therefore I have to come down on the side of keeping it all together. Do we actually need the table, though, or can we make do with prose? It would be interesting to see what WT79 The Engineer could do with less detail, and just rely on the references to tell the whole story. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point WT79 of having both Coordinates and OS grid reference in the major quarries table? Perhaps there is no need to change it if the table is going to be replaced shortly by text or even a labelled map.SovalValtos (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SovalValtos: Good point, probably in this case having both values is irrelevant. I mostly edit pages for individual quarries (here there is not enough information to justify such a split), where typically both are given as infobox values. I sort of did it without thinking, but in articles such as this it is probably an irrelevant level of detail. WT79 ^{(Speak to me | account info)} 13:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External link

User:Tony Holkham I removed the external link Cilgerran (Visit Pembrokeshire) as I didn't think the Destination Management Organisations (DMOs) inclusion was justified by the content guideline Wikipedia:External links. It is not an official site for Cilgerran; Cilgerran Community Council may be the one allowed WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. What does the DMO provide that is a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article WP:LINKSTOAVOID?SovalValtos (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the logic of 'it is linked directly from the county council's website, so adds to the encyclopaedic value of the article'[2]. A non sequitur to me.SovalValtos (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a distinction between guidelines and policy, often woolly, in my view. However, I undid my hasty revert. I said "... adds to the encyclopaedic value ... etc" because it has useful non-commercial information not in the article. Seemed harmless enough to me, but not insisting. Not at my most lucid today. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]