Jump to content

Talk:Lochgelly

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

Entertainment

[edit]

Lochgelly is served by the Lochgelly Centre, which has a 424-seat theatre that’s ideal for community theatre groups, dance groups and music events.

The town is also served by the Lochgelly Town Hall, which is now establishing itself as a venue for live bands. Rubber Stamp Promotions hold regular events at this venue, with bands such as The Vivians and Sergeant playing there in 2009.

Highest place in Fife?

[edit]

No doubt a good faith edit but Lochgelly is clearly not the highest place; West Lomond is. Anyway, the ref. says town rather than place and although this may possibly have been true historically, according to the current 1:50k Ordnance Survey map, parts of Glenrothes (Collydean (177m, with some slightly detached buildings up to 200m) and also Kelty (175m) are slightly higher. The highest point in Lochgelly is 167m. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon Reply: I think the person meant that it is the highest populated point in Fife, rather than focusing on specific landmarks and specific areas within a town, Lochgelly is the highest populated town in the Fife area —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.233.247 (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, no it isn't. I can't think how you would designate the height of a town if not in reference to particular places or areas within it. It would be difficult to ascertain the average height of a town and meaningless when comparing settlements of widely differing sizes (and if we went to villages and hamlets, there are several northeast of Largo Law higher than any point in Lochgelly). A fair portion of Kelty is higher than the very highest point in Lochgelly and the remainders of each town are of roughly comparable heights. Most of Glenrothes is lower than most of Lochgelly but it is a much larger town and sections in the north and west are of comparable height and in some instances higher. That Lochgelly is the "highest town" is not supportable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guest Reply: The information I believe is from an outdated source. I was under the impression that historically, Lochgelly was the highest populated area in Fife but, many new developments have happened since then, and so as you mention the information is unsupportable and was a 'good faith' edit.

Future Development/Lochgelly Charette

[edit]

This new section is strongly worded and critical of the charette, yet is uncited so may simply be the POV of the editor. Please address this. A quick Google search also finds positive comment on the charette, not least, so some balance ought to be reflected. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guest ReplyI've had a look at the page and added references for the negative aspects, I have also tried to balance the section by adding a pros section. I do agree there is many positive articles for the Lochgelly Charrette in the search engines, but that is because, these reports (such as the article you mentioned) have been widely distributed through various news channels and receive local authority and government support. Foe example the website you mentioned is the official Charrette site for Lochgelly, yet if you look at the comments for all the articles, there is only a couple of positive comments made by local councillors and school children, there is many negative comments made from individuals. The other aspect of only positive news online is that the local community do not have much of an online platform to raise their views, publicly online. As a local resident I am well aware of the criticism the charrette has received locally, and have been following this development, here is a few sites that either criticise the charrette, or have received critical comments over the charrette process:

There is not many sites critical of the charrette and the site you quoted is the official site for the charrette, managed by the local authority (Fife Council), so hence the positive review, unfortunately for the people of Lochgelly, the official view is the one being repeated across many sites, therefore I suggest focusing on the comments to get a more balanced view. To give the local authority credit, the official charrette sie does not seem to censor negative comments.

As a local I am showing bias, but that is because anytime the charrette is mentioned locally, there is only negative feedback that I have heard from local people, yet this is being ignored by media outlets, and therefore there is also bias in reporting the charrette by the media that are choosing to put a positive spin on everything.

I would recommend that you contact the Community Council (http://www.fifedirect.org.uk/orgs/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&orgid=224A221C-24EE-48CE-9FDC74BFD865629C) or Lochgelly Community Development Forum (http://lcdf.org.uk/?page_id=10) for their views, as they can verify the bad feeling in the local community towards the Lochgelly Charrette, as both groups work closely within the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.155.77 (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but in Wikipedia we can only state what is detailed in the sources available: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The council site is also a reliable source, so worthy of inclusion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guest Reply thanks for the reference link, I'll have a good look the now. I will also try to add some balance to the charrette section, so both viewpoints (positive & negative) are getting equal coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.155.77 (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wind Farm Development

[edit]

I am removing the original research which links the Interaction of an Eulerian Flue Gas Plume with Wind Turbines paper[1] with the Little Raith wind farm. No citation is given discussing the paper in relation to this wind farm, which would make its inclusion WP:SYNTH even if it was correct but at best the stated conclusions placed in the WP article misinterpret the paper. On page 9 of the paper it states the trend described "does not persist beyond 4–5 rotor diameters downwind of the turbine". The West Coast Energy site states the "Turbine Blade Tip Height" is 126m and that the "Turbine Hub Height" is 85m making the radius 126-85=41m, the diameter 2x41=82m and "4–5 rotor diameters" thus up to 328 to 410m from the turbine. This is almost 1km furth of the stated distance of the nearest houses, in Cowdenbeath. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Lochgelly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lochgelly. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lochgelly. 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) 19:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lochgelly&oldid=1202733790"