Jump to content

Talk:Pakefield/Archive 1 - 2008 to 2010

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


Initial Comments

I would like to know why placing a shipwreck on the Pakefield Suffolk page is copy writing? Half of these businesses are not mentioned even if they are they have been in reference only!

The objection to this article is not that it is a violation of copyright, but that it is written in a tone that is more like an advertisement than a nuetral, factual encyclopedia article. However, the deletion tag was removed some time ago; you are the one who nominated this article for speedy deletion. That doesn't seem to be what you wanted, so I removed your {hangon} tag. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well i shall delete the page myself if i am causing to much problems. How am i advertising a shipwreck? I am not

Headline text

offering cruises on it which is mighty difficult, it is fact based.

Notable People

Is it alright if i add the actor Shane Ritchie to notable people with a citation. It turns out he used to be a bluecoat at Pontins of Pakefield.

http://www.lowestoftjournal.co.uk/content/lowestoftjournal/whatson/story.aspx?brand=LOWOnline&category=Whatson&tBrand=LOWOnline&tCategory=whatson&itemid=NOED18%20Sep%202009%2009%3A40%3A48%3A293

Seems reasonable as it's a connection and it's not as if there's a long list of them. I've added the ref to the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Kindertransport

The article Kindertransport mentions Pakefield. Should there not be something about this historical mission in this article? I would write it myself, but I do not know enough about it. Coyets (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Pakefield, reply

Thank you very much for your suggestion i will add this soon. If you could add any information i would be grateful

Rock school reference removed

Why has someone deleted the article of rock school from notable people?

The reference was 'they drove through Pakefield'. Driving through a place is not notable, imagine if every location that any TV series had ever driven through was listed on Wikipedia. a_boardley (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.181.187 (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Village?

  • There seems to be a lot of talk about whether or not Pakefield is a village. I, personally, would say it isn't, as a resident it merges seamlessly into Kirkley as a district of Lowestoft and government sources such as Waveney District Council refer to it as a district within Lowestoft. The visit-lowestoft website, however, tries to market it as a village (and I am in no disagreement that historically it was), and so I concede that it can be referred to as such with this reference. However, one cannot avoid that it is now also PART OF LOWESTOFT. Yes, it retains some of its individual character, as does every district of every town and city, but just glance at a map or satellite image (use the geolink at the top right of the page), or travel through it, and it cannot be seen as 'seperate' from Lowestoft.
  • Incidentally, Village#United_Kingdom mentions the predominence of villages being seperating from neighbouring towns by Green Belts of land - not true in this case, and having a parish council with no town hall - also not true in this case as Pakefield comes under the jurisdiction of Waveney District Council at Lowestoft Town Hall (any search through meetings of minutes there will find plenty of administration on Pakefield)
  • I am not trying to remove all mention of village or its own identity (which the whole article effectively covers) but I think it is sensible to have 'Pakefield is a village that now forms part of Lowestoft' in the header - this includes all the relevant information and does nto contradict either view point. Agreed?
  • Can I remind users that whilst bold editing is encouraged, and it is natural to have differing viewpoints, repeated edits of an article that ignore the consensus of discussions or any attempt at correspondence do constitute vandalism. Please discuss this issue here.

a_boardley (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with it being appart of Lowestoft but only to the point of a suburb other wise it is still a village like Kessingland. Lowestoft only runs its services nothing more. It would be like saying Gorleston is Great Yarmouth however, Gorleston still keeps its same standard as a small town close to Great Yarmouth comeing under sign posts like Gorleston and Great Yarmouth.


  • Please sign your posts with four tildes (4 x ~). Kessingland is completely distinct as can be seen from a map, it is seperated by a green belt whereas Pakefield/Lowestoft isn't. Saying 'part' of Lowestoft is similar to saying 'suburb'. The fact it has its own page clearly gives it its own identity so there is little need to remove all mention of Lowestoft as you seem to have been doing. What exactly do you mean 'runs its services'? Does this imply that everything outside of the town hall or MP's office is seperate to them? Whatever your views the facts from all sources are clearly that Pakefiled forms part of Lowestoft, albeit with its own history and character. Gorleston is much bigger than Pakefield. Do you wish to go through every suburb/district/housing estate with its own road sign and edit its Wikipedia article to distance it from its parent town? May I enquire why you are so keen to completely seperate Pakefield from Lowestoft?. Because; the MP for Waveney Bob Blizzard lives in Pakefield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.30.226 (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC) * I'm sorry, can you explain more? I don't understand. a_boardley
  • Bob blizzard is a MP for Waveney district not a Lowestoft burgh he sais he lives in Pakefield meaning Pakefield is alot more relevant to Waveney District than being apart of Lowestoft. In history Lowestoft, Kirkley, Pakefield were all fishing villages that used to compete so it is not fair to call all 3 of them Lowestoft. That is why there is such a thing as waveney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.30.226 (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If he said he lived in 'London Road', that would not separate it from Lowestoft, nor does saying 'Pakefield' seperate it from Lowestoft. Although this is besides the point, we already both agree that Pakefield has its own identity as a village. It's just a case of is it part of Lowestoft/Waveney/Suffolk and the answer is yes all round. Waveney exists for political reasons and can just as easily cease to exists if boundaries change, so Pakefield being part of it (as indeed it is within the Cunty of Suffolk or the Country of England) does not counter the fact it is a Lowestoft suburb.a_boardley (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • luckerley suburb is on the edge as far as definition from Lowestoft as can be found. throught the historical name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.30.226 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry? a_boardley (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean 'really known as Lowestoft'. I would say Pakefield is known as part of Lowestoft a_boardley (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I hope you will accept the latest compromise. I have defined Pakefield as a 'village', once seperate but now has 'met' Lowestoft (note I have not said it is a part of) and forms a 'southern suburb'. I have also said that a boundary is difficult to define, which I'll think you'll also agree is true as there are no 'you are now entering/leaving Pakeield/Kirkley/Lowestoft' signs we can only go by our opinions and historical usage. I have also consolidated a lot of the information (each sentence did not need its own heading). Note that it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to list every feature of a settlement (see WP:UKTOWNS), the major features have been defined anmd a link given to the seeminly reputable Promoting Pakefield website. Note too that a link cannot be given for every business or organisation, in Pakefield. If they are notable and mentioned in the text then perhaps it is relevant to do so, but on the whole it is not the purpose of Wiki. Please try to keep as many citations inline as possible. Please discuss these changes here before doing further large edits or it may be seen as vandalism. Please sign your talk posts with four tildes (4 x a_boardley (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)). a_boardley (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • now there is a history section could you please add the name of the windmiil "tower corn windmill" along with info on the battle that happened at bloodmoor hill pakefield.
Have you a reference for this? a_boardley (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I donot have any reference to any websites anything iasked to please be added but the information can be found in books Flinten history, pakefield books, haunted Lowestoft all by aurthers Ivan Bunn, Michal Foreman, Jhon Holmes.

  • I don't have access to this book. Feel free to add it yourself but note to (a) only add what is in the reference, not your own extension of it (b) do it from a neutral point of view (NPOV), leaving out opinion, (c) keep it consise. Please also check for spelling and grammar and use the Wikipedia tools (see the 'cite' button above the edit box) to cite it properly, otherwise there is danger of editors removing it. I advise you to re-read your edits before posting them as there is a danger of error creeping in, and if they cannot be read properly they may just be ignored/deleted. Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (4 x ~). I recommend you also sign up for a free Wiki account to help you manage your edits. a_boardley (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pakefield to be separate to Lowestoft with many things added in Pakefield down to itself. It was classed as it's own village and i think removing its name would be like removing a page in the history book. It has it's own history and therefore should stay.lake district

The Promoting Pakefield Group is just of interest to area and to defend Pakefield it does not have any politics as a council in its own right whilst it is apart of Lowestoft. It is Just a local group as most areas have. What Pakefield has to go through is anuf to say its to defend area with trying to have alot of interest in the area.

Pakefield governance

Would it be possible to add a section on the local councillor Malcolm Pitchers of the labour party who won a seat here last year. The local Promoting Pakefield group which takes on the roll of the parish council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.182.115 (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Pakefield doesn't have its own governance, it is just one ward within Waveney Distric Council. One councillor winning one seat one year isn't noteworthy. Perhaps consider adding information to the Waveney page. a_boardley (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You could say that the services are run by waveney district council which is mainly done by Lowestoft.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.182.115 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Promoting Pakefield Group is just of interest to area and to defend Pakefield it does not have any politics as a council in its own right whilst it is apart of Lowestoft. It is Just a local group as most areas have. What Pakefield has to go through is anuf to say its to defend area with trying to have alot of interest in the area.

STOP DELETING THINGS! It is a council election you may not agree with but you are not Lord Pakefield, and it is of interest and factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeontheedge (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Im no lord or politics but the government is not all to do with the promoting pakefield group it is a local group for interest and to defend Pakefield. IT IS NOT A PARISH COUNCIL SO PLEASE DO NOT ADD IT TO THE ARTICAL IT IS ON THE TALK PAGE OTHER TOPICS ARE FINE PLEASE LEAVE PAKEFIELD SECTIONS WITH NO GOVERNMENT TOPIC TO MUCH POLITICS!!!! so what need is there for topic on the artical.

Yes but they are local councilors for suffolk elected like the rest of the UK politics. By ballot, they had the votes counted and they are the two councilors which are representing Pakefield. So therefore it should stay! Regardless of the promoting Pakefield group which only acts as a parish council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeontheedge (talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OK WHY HASENT ANY OTHER AREA GOT A BIG STATISTICS PAGE ON IT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT WHY JUST PAKEFIELD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.107.118 (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Promoting Pakefield Group is a local group for interest and to defend Pakefield from MAJOUR REGENERATION WORKS. THE COUNCIL IS WAVENEY DISTRICT COUNCIL AND SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL runned in LOWESTOFT. SO THE PROMOTING PAKEFIELD GROUP ACTS AS NOTHING MORE THAN LOCAL INTEREST!!!! POLITICS ASIDE PLEASE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.107.118 (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

PAKEFIELD HAS NOT GOT A PARISH COUNCIL AS IT MAKES UP ONE AREA OF A TOWN CALLED LOWESTOFT IT IS NO LONGER A VILLAGE IN ITS OWN RIGHT!!!!. SO NO TOPIC NEEDED ABOUT ANY GOVERNING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.107.118 (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

YES IT DOES THEY ARE TWO COUNCILLORS ELECTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF PAKEFIELD SO THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE THE RESULTS. JUST BECAUSE YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH IT, DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN DELETE IT!!!!!!!!!!!! promoting pakefield is not elected like the councilors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeontheedge (talk • contribs) 20:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I WOULD NOT SIGN ALLOW SOME PEOPLE DO. OK YOU GOT SOME STATISTICS OF POLITICAL GOVERNING. I DONT DIAGREE WITH COUNCILLORS AS THEY ARE COUNCILLORS. OK SO THERES TWO COUNCILLORS WHAT IS SO IMPORTANT ABOUT THEASE TWO COUNCILLORS THAT POEPLE NEED TO SEE A TABLE?. WHAT IS SO IMPORTANT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT. JUST BECAUSE; THERE ARE TWO COUNCILLORS DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING OTHER THAN THEY DO THE POLITICS. OK SO BUT THERE IS STILL THE PROMOTING PAKEFIELD GROUP WHICH IS ACTUALLY IN PAKEFIELD FOR LOCAL INTEREST WHICH MAY INCLUDE STANDING UP FOR PAKEFIELD SOMETIMES. IF IT WASENT FOR THE PROMOTING PAKEFIELD GROUP; PAKEFIELD WOULD HAVE BEEN ALTERED BY MAJOUR REGENERATION WORKS STATRED BY; WAVENEY SUNRISE SCHEME. THUS PAKEFIELD HAD LITTLE IMPACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.134.60 (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS AND FIGURES TO BACK UP THIS POINT ANONYMOUS SIGNER? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeontheedge (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

JUST LOOK AT OTHER WEBSIES FOR YOURSELF. JUST BEACUSE; YOUR KIRKLEY. KIRKLEY THINK THEY CONTROL ALL OF LOWESTOFT. IT IS NOT TO DO WITH YOU WHAT IM DOING ON HERE?. ITS NOT MAJOUR REGENERATION WORKS ANYWAY!!!!!!

SO YOU WERE USEING WIKI TO TRY AND MAKE PEOPLE THINK MAJOUR REGENERATION WAS HAPPENING ELSEWHERE!!!. WIKI IS A ARTICAL ITSELF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.33.65 (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think you guys could stop embarrassing yourselves and try to build an article with some consensus involved? Signing talk comments (it's 4 of those ~ things at the end of your comment) would be helpful. The article is starting to look like a bit of a joke - too much stuff in it which doesn't meet guidelines and too much badly written opinion. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. This sort of editing really does not help matters. I'll see if I can wade in and look at the whole thing, taking guidelines into account in the next few days. Then we can talk about the changes I'll make (unless some other editor who has experience with entries about UK places gets here first) on here rather than making a whole series of edits which are counterproductive. Seriously guys, you're starting to look rather silly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Sily who calls themself Blue Square Thing!!! Signing gives to much away it would only be helpful to you!!!!. Editing may not help matters allow; the artical is comeing on nice now. Whoever you are you don't sound as if you have much care for it!!!!. To you editing may look sily dosent mean it is!!!!. It may be counterproductive but its better than a artical full of rubbish from people like Lifeontheedge. Theres nothing wrong with editing as it improves the artical regardless of exsperiance or people like Lifeontheedge that suddenley appear from somewhere else and try to stop the flow. As for Blue Square Thing your no different. Stop keep trying to stop me improveing the artical by editeing when you havent done anything for this ARTICAL before!!!. So i will mostlikeley carry on editeing regardless of thease silly people like Blue Square Thing and Lifeontheedge. Being KIRKLEY based mean you both thought you try it on im not stupid now leave me on this artical alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.224.210 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

With the best will in the world, you're making it look like this page needs some protection against unproductive IP address editors. Start by getting an account and then trying to be a productive editor please. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous signer please learn to spell and stop being selfish! This is a site which takes into account historical interest. It is not just YOURS and i think we should discuss things on here before deleting or adding anything. Quite frankly if your spelling is bad it may be a benefit posting it on here first! You cannot write what you feel like it has to be factual. Lifeontheedge

The fact is; All Hail KIRKLEY F.C. you havent got no history loads of cups and wemberley thats what LOWESTOFT call HISTORY. half of PAKEFIELD'S HISTORY is in LOWESTOFT MUSEAM. KIRKLEY are selfish and canot stand that PAKEFIELD GETS ON WITH LOWESTOFT AND THEY DONT!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.181.247 (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Governance

Pakefield sends two councillors to the county council and local council. Traditionally the seats have been Labour Party so had most areas, however the Conservative are now in more. The Member of Parliament is elected through the Waveney seat which is currently held by Bob Blizzard as of which Lowestoft does most of it.

Pakefield has boundaries with another suburb of Lowestoft;Carlton Colville and the district of Lowestoft;Kirkley. However; all areas make up the town of Lowestoft.

Election results 2009

County Council election 2009: Pakefield
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Conservative Kathy Gosling, Ken Sale 3228
Labour Roger Bellham,Peter Byatt 1881
Liberal Democrats Sandra Tonge, James Russell 1225
Green Michael Milan,Phillip Tregear 1372
Turnout 11732 34.60%
Conservative hold Swing

The Promoting Pakefield Group is just of interest to area and to defend Pakefield it does not have any politics as a council in its own right whilst it is apart of Lowestoft. It is Just a local group as most areas have. What Pakefield has to go through is anuf to say its to defend area with trying to have alot of interest in the area.

Thus Pakefield is a suburb of Lowestoft.

Football Club

I notice there is a mention of Lowestoft town F.C but no mention of the Kirkley and Pakefield F.C who play in the ridgeons league at their ground on Pakefield Park. lifeontheedge —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

Good idea. I'll take a look at the structure of this article at some point anyway as it's getting a bit random. I'll try and work this in when I do. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish there is no mention of both clubs beacuse; there is always a debate with Kirkley F.C. between Lowestoft Town FC about who was established first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.26.12 (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

i am confused unless this happened tonight it is always know as KIRKLEY AND PAKEFIELD F.C. Take a look on the wikipedia page under the above name.

Well it has not always been known as that at all Pakefield Football Club; Pakefield F.C. were established in 1981. However; Kirkley Football Club they have always been called Kirkley F.C. they were established in 1886 and play at Walmer Road in Kirkley. As for Lowestoft Football Club they have always been called Lowestoft Town F.C. they play at Crown Meadow in Lowestoft they were established in 1887. There is always a debate between Lowestoft F.C. and Kirkley F.C. about what club has more importance and most of all 1 year between clubs. As for which it is nothing to do with Pakefield F.C. as such.

Does this discussion have any point? Well one thing is for certain they do not play on the rifle range as it is privately owned land. With no connection whatsoever of football?

No idea, lets say the Pakefield area being where it is right in the middle of all this type of thing would beacome; vulnerable to other areas near to it that is why there is alot of debating going on. Yes; it does not have anything to do with the Rifle Range that is privately owned land that is how it still keeps Pakefield Rifle Range going under Pakefield name allow most of area goes as apart of Lowestoft now that would just be a back up to help our debate that Pakefield F.C. do not get right involved. And that Kirkley F.C. make a big fuss about it which Lowestoft F.C. now about and just do there best to keep things in a happy mood between areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.105.30 (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh i see, but it would be good if people discussed it on here first, i worked hard on a local election table which was just deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeontheedge (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't deleted, it got moved into this article at Pakefield#Governance, same as yesterday. It was deleted from this article yesterday by anonymous editor User:78.149.142.46, half-an-hour after I moved it in, in this unexplained deletion: [1]. No idea why. MuffledThud (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Some people say its just politics allow; some areas see it as they keep there own name e.g. Kirkley is more apart of Lowestoft area than Pakefield is.

Pakefield has not realey got its own government it is down to Lowestoft topic of Government has been move to talk about it. Where as the other topics are all ok however; it has not been deleted thow.

Promoting Pakefield

I've removed this section as it stands. In the condition it was in I don't believe it was anything other than a list of businesses etc... The article doesn't need that in it's current state.

Potentially the idea of a group to promote the area might be a worthwhile topic for a section here - but not in that format and not without some kind of referencing please: if it's an active group then there must be some kind of npov source that can be cited - the Journal or EDP for example. This is essential if the lists aren't to be considered as anything more than spam.

I also think the position of such a section within the article needs to be carefully considered - I'd like to see a bit more of a consistent structure anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Like that ill try and find some sort of source then i will add it later with more information about the group who is in it the events and so on. Every where has some sort of group ours is The Promoting Pakefield Group it is not just about trade it is about the Pakefield area as a whole e.g. Pakefield likes pet animals no big deal about it someone goes under user Snob not much to say when you judge our local Promoting Pakefield Group. As for Princess Anne we have not alot of care for Royals we just needed someone to open the fire station.—Preceding signed comment added by 78.146.26.12 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest you add comments to my Talk Page in future, not my user page? That's what talk pages are for. As it happens I'm based in Beccles - couldn't really give a toss about either Pakefield or Kirkley; could, however, give a toss that the articles are half decent :-) Take care with the PP stuff - you clearly have some NPOV issues if you're part of the group. I was surprised that a group like that had only a free webspace mini-site actually - I think you need to make sure that you have some coverage that is OK from the press or something. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Article Status

I have significant concerns about this article.

I have attempted to rewrite it in keeping with the style guidance at WP:UKTOWNS and remove material which is either irrelevant or clear pov. I'm not happy at all with it as it stands but I am convinced that we need to work to improve this article by adding only verifiable information - and that means providing clear citations for things. Given the recent spate of edits to this page, a number of which have been rather less than productive, I'd suggest that inexperienced editors may wish to consider discussing future edits in this section first.

Please guys, if you care at all about building a constructive encyclopedia then don't screw around with this and simply reinsert information which is poorly written pov. Talk about it here and we'll see if we can come to a consensus. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding references. I'll add some retrieved dates when I get the chance. Note how the bot has named them for future reference makes life a lot easier. I've removed some of the reference to ERASE - this is dealt with in plenty of detail on the Pakefield HS page. The article clearly links to there and I don't think we need what is potentially contradiction on this page. I have kept the ref in though which I think will help.
CEFAS - in Pakefield? I don't know - maps suggest it's in Kirkley - clearly there are no boundaries as such any more. I may look at an old map when I get the chance later and decide if it was in the old parish. It is certainly on Pakefield Road, but then the A12 in Pakefield is called London Road isn't it? Perhaps we'd need to cite the actual location within Pakefield. I don't have any pov to push (a pov on a geograpical issue?!) - simply wanting to make this accurate. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Google Maps or Google Earth might think so WHO CAN REALEY ON SAT NAV'S!!!. Allow Cefas mostley go as Lowestoft to them it dosant mean allot they would say Lowestoft. However; up to The church dedicated to St Nichoala's is in Pakefield. Opposite Cefas it being Right near Cefas must be in Pakefield to form the boundary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.93.241 (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Please do not revert autosigning - it's destructive and leads to confusion.
I have a pre-borough status map. This will show parish boundaries prior to the 1930s and will allow us to determine it's location. I'm minded to reword as "on the borders of Pakefield and Kirkley" - anyone got any objections to that? Unless of course the maps prove anything specific. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we can put it on Pakefied artical that Cefas goes as Lowestoft beacuse; its on the boarder between two places.
I think it needs reference to Pakefield if it's going to be in this article. I think something about the border makes sense - it *is* a big local thing; it certainly needs to be on the Lowestoft page anyway. I'll have a look and we'll see where we can get to on this (btw: add several : in front of your talk messages to indent them so that the thread makes a touch more sense when people view it if you can. And 4 ~ symbols to sign). Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
1907 OS map shows the border of the parishs of Pakefield and Kirkley as running along the current Pakefield Street from the junction with Londond Road and Stradbroke Road to the sea. CEFAS is therefore within the old Kirkley parish so I've gotten rid of the reference here as it only seems to cause debate. Added it, and the refs, to the Kirkley page. I'll check and see if it needs to be in Lowestoft as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

IT does not matter what you think BLUE SQUARE THING what you think does NOT NEEDED I WILL EDIT HOW I WANT WHY DO YOU NOT READ SOME OTHER ARTICAL. Pakefield is a suburb of Lowestoft, Suffolk no other TALK IS NEEDED ABOUT IT To sum up some content i will delete as it is not NEEDED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.147.176 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines at WP:UKTOWNS. These give very clear indications of how to write about settlements. Especially pay attention to Wikipedia:UKCITIES#Lead.2A and the examples given in that section. These make clear the way that a lead should be structured, suggests some clear wording examples and make useful suggeststions as to what might be included within the lead of an article. I'm looking particularly at the third bullet point which suggests the use of "a place". This article, as well as a number of others relating to places in Lowestoft, has been the subject of a number of to and fro edits which have focused on whether the area is a suburb, village, district or something else (look at the current (as of 2009-11-21) version of the Lowestoft article for example). Place seems to me to be the best compromise given that there appears to be a degree of dispute, especially with regard to Kirkley and Pakefield.
If you want to discuss this further then I'd suggest you seek the views of a range of other editors on this talk page before you continue with what will appear as disruptive edits. Fwiw I tend to agree with the description of Pakefield as a suburb, but am simply trying to create a stable article which won't get edited back to village status by another editor (please see some of the recent diffs for the article).
You might also want to take a look at WP:LEAD. Clearly the lead to the article needs more than the content you're providing. I'd also take a look at Template:Infobox_UK_place - I would agree that the infobox might need some work, but your editing of it isn't helpful just now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


What other editors? THE PERSON I HAVE TO KEEP SPEAKING TO IS YOU! AND YOUR SILY USER NAME OF BLUE SQUARE THING NOW LETS TRY AND CREATE A ARTICAL IF YOU ARE SO BOTHERED ABOUT HOW IM DOING IT THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER ARTICAL WEBSITES. AND WILL YOU STOP KEEP TRYING TO GET AT ME ON THIS ONE ARTICAL WEBSITE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.145.148 (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestions for improvement are? I'm very happy to talk about them - here, on the talk page.
For what it's worth I see 6 different IP editors in the last 50 edits to the page - plus at least one other named editor making changes. Those have all occurred within the last 11 days. Of course, they may all be one person changing their apparent IP address all the time, I don't know. There are certainly some similarities, as there are with the edits made to a variety of Suffolk towns last evening which were purely vandalism. Oddly, people signing up for an account and logging in would make the task of trying to have a discussion about what should go on the page rather easier.
There have been, if you look further back in the diffs, a number of other editors who have contributed to this page. At least some of them seem to have gotten bored of the continuous destructive anonymous IP edits and decided not to bother any more. Perhaps if editors were to use log ins. discuss radical changes and employ the protocols and standards expected of pages such as this it'd help matters.
And, remember, 4 ~ let you sign your talk comments rather than relying on a bot to do it for you. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

YOU MUST BE CRAZY LOWESTOFT IS A OK TOWN AT LEAST WE COULD DO WITH OUT JUST ONE AREA TRYING TO TAKE IT OVER!!. I WOULD NOT HAVE TO SAY OR TALK ABOUT ANYTHING FOR PEOPLE LOCAL TO KNOW WHAT PART I MEAN!! . NOW LET ALL EDITORS DO THERE EDITING!!!. I DID ASK THEM THEY SAID EDITING IT DOES NOT MAKE ALOT OF DIFFERENCE AS MOST OF THE ARTICALS HAVE BEEN OF NOT MUCH IMPORTANCE!!!.

Why is this topic part protected?. From what i can see once it is edited ok and parts that are not needed deleted. Then it should be protected. vandaconalism (talk), 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I requested temporary partial protection based on the 80% of recent diffs made by IP editors which are unconstructive vandalism. The article doesn't need to be protected - what part protection will do is provide some cooling off time to, hopefully, allow a greater consensus to be reached and the rationale for the article in it's current form to be explained. It does not need to be fully protected in my opinion: that's completely against the aims of Wikipedia.
I would hope that anonymous IP editors would kinda take the opportunity to realise what they're doing here (and, for that matter, elsewhere). Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Suburb/Place

I was just wondering if it would be possible to change place to suburb? place seems lifeless at least with suburb you get more character! talk-lifeontheedge

As suggested above, I would tend to agree. My use of place was a compromise given guidance at WP:UKTOWNS. Given the apparently contentious nature of this however (looking back to diffs from the end of September for example) I'd suggest that rather than be bold we leave this up for discussion for a fortnight or so just in case anyone wants to express a pov about it. Any problem with that from anyone? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok cheers so in two weeks time if there are no objections it may be changed, i like this scheme as it gives enough people time to comment on potential changes,lets keep this scheme in place. -lifeontheedge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeontheedge (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would allow us to be surer that there was some consensus about stuff. I'd add a comment into the edit as well referencing this discussion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree on suburb. Watch out for rogue reverters though who don't read talk pages. a_boardley (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree a boardley i think this should be the new way of foing things! lifeontheedge —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC).

Can it now be changed to suburb instead of place? There has been no objections.lifeontheedge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.209.53 (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Certain user

I think this user Blue Square Thing should be banned and blocked from Wikipedia as they are all over the place with articles and will not stop talking about how we should do things on here also will not let the other editors have a chance to edit. vandaconalism (talk), 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Take it to ANI or my own talk page then. This isn't the place for it (see WP:TALK). Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, it is others who think it is suitable to just put what they feel, however the CEFAS reference should not have been removed and people are drawing their own boundaries for Pakefield. Discuss it on here first and leave any changes for two weeks. -lifeontheedge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeontheedge (talk • contribs) 18:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Boundaries are clear on the population reference for what it's worth. These mirror those from the 1907 map referenced with regard to CEFAS at Kirkley. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Population

Yes the population is fine i could not find an accurate source thanks for that, i agree with what you are saying.


Notable People Removed

How come the section of notable people has been removed? It used to have Michael Foreman and shane ritchie who used to work as a bluecoat at the local holiday park. I think it should be restored. lifeontheedge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.209.53 (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with notable people is that it very quickly turns into a list of people who are vaguely related to the area and then some idea of what means notable needs to be determined. If it keeps to the guidelines at WP:UKCITIES then I'd be happy, but I think I'd want to see clear citations that demonstrate people meet the criteria at WP:UKCITIES#Notable_people
  • All persons under this section must satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people).
  • A note on what people from this settlement are called, (e.g. people from Manchester are called Mancunians).
  • A note on any notable births in the settlement.
  • A note on any notable residents in the settlement.
  • Do not use a list format in this section. Please write this as prose, reference each person, and do not use the word "famous".
Just that you could see this as being a battle about individuals again. For example, I'm not sure you could argue Shane Ritchie met those criteria necessarily, although if there were a section on Pontin's (which doesn't sound unreasonable as part of an economy section) then he may merit a short mention there. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
However Michael Foreman was born in Pakefield and attended Pakefield primary school
http://www.theweeweb.co.uk/public/author_profile.php?id=260
This must be ok for the notable people wiki guidelines but i agree on Shane Ritchie
lifeontheedge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.209.53 (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely - was there anyone else who'd meet the guidelines on the original list do you know? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure i will hunt around but Michael Foreman is the only person so far. lifeontheedge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.209.53 (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking back at the diffs, it doesn't look as if there's really anyone else. Add Foreman in a new section with the ref and we'll see what happens to it. If there's just Foreman then there's just him - that's OK. If you can't add him or don't want to then I'll get round to it in the next couple of weeks. The Lowestoft article could use this sort of thing dealing with it on it as well tbf Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakefield/Archive_1_-_2008_to_2010&oldid=1241207935"