Talk:Farnborough, Hampshire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Objectivity of the Farnborough article

This page is not objective enough.

This article seems objective to me. A little dull perhaps. How do you think it might be improved?

Gaius Cornelius 20:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I have cleaned up the article but not touched this section as I do not know enough about it. It reads like a residents association newsletter which is not ideal. Just needs to a bit more balanced. Perhaps some details of what prompted the change and if it has been a success (from a business point of view). Just needs to show the whole picture.

MRSC 14:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Famous Farnborough residents

I speak as a new resident of Farnborough. On the article page for our neighbours Aldershot (pop. 33,000), there are 15 "famous residents" listed. There are none listed on the pages for Farnborough (pop. 57,000)! We can't have this. Can anyone come up with any famous Farnborough-ians and add them?

Tobycek 01:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Cody? Phooto 08:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Check

I have nominated this page for a Neutral Point of View check as some parts of the article seem to cite a personal opinion - Notably the Social and Retail sections - But at the same time I'd rather run this past a Wiki expert, rather than change it myself. I would normally agree with and support the comments about the town centre (Aye, I am a Farnborough resident!) and it's long overdue refurbishment, but these two sections do not appear to cite a Neutral Point of View as is desired by Wikipedia standards.

Hyperspeed 19:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bison & buffalo

The article claims the abattoir is "licensed to kill ... bison and buffalo". Are we sure about this unreferenced statement? After all, as far as I'm aware, bison and buffalo are not found in the UK except in zoos so just how many of the beasts would show up at a UK abattoir? Astronaut (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Exam results

The 2011 GCSE results are final, official and comparable across all schools. 2012 results are not yet final (all schools will have numerous appeals going on for example).

2012 results are also only as published by the school itself - a school with poor results in Maths and English for example could leave these subjects out of the headline figures they give. Another school will correctly include them.

All the 2011 results are comparable across all 5 schools in the area because they all include Maths and English.

Can we leave this section as it is until the final comparable results are published by either Hampshire County Council or DfES. The sources used in the previous additions are WP:Primary. Thanks, Ytic nam 10:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytic nam (talk • contribs)

Tumble Down Dick pub images

It seems that some external group wants, for some unexplained reason, to have an image of the pub removed from here and The Tumble Down Dick Pub. However, given that the image was released under a valid license and the outside group has no control over Wikipedia and that the image is of good quality I see no reason that it should not remain. The license, CC-BY-SA-3.0, was removed at one point by that does not render it invalid and the image may be used. By the way I moved it and some others over to Commons. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC) A member of the Friends Of The Tumbledown Dick wants my images representing the building to be removed. They have taken offence since I left the group at the use of my images. Obviously I don't have to obey their wishes, but they have made things difficult, so it's simply easier to comply than argue. Every time I have removed it, it's been put back, and I can't delete the original image. Phooto (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm slightly concerned about the copyright status of this image. Phooto, just to confirm, was this a photograph you took because you wanted to, or was it one that you took as a work for hire? If the latter, it should be deleted unless the person/organisation that hired you sends a declaration that it can be freely licensed. ---- Mrmatiko (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I did take it because I wanted to (and was not paid, so it is clearly my copyright), but the FoTTD group trying to rescue the pub have requested that my pictures are not used to promote their work in any way, which is their prerogative, I suppose. I can of course simply go and take a picture and publish it I know without restriction, but they have taken offence to my involvement in their campaign and it's not worth the aggravation. They think they hold the rights to anything Tumbledown related, it's causing too many problems for me to bother enforcing my rights.Phooto (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is trying not to promote anybody's cause through our policies against non-neutrality and advertising and promotion. If you took the photo from a public highway the copyright was yours. You have now put it in the public domain so anyone can use it. It is not you who is keeping the image on the page if other editors now put it there. I do not know the politics behind this rather odd case but a campaign group can not determine which public domain images are used here.--Charles (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)