Talk:Poole Pottery

The Official Reciever is currently working to save Poole Pottery once agaian. I will add information again when there is news.I removed the part of the sentance 'and could face legal action after the current owners (Jeffrey Zemmel and Roy Simmons) decided not to pay the bills' as there is no evidence of this being so, this is an extremely risky comment not proven in court or stated by the Official Recievers responsible for investigating the circumstances in which Poole Pottery closed. Paulw99 16:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Poole Pottery was taken over by a new company which still trades as Poole Pottery.

The Pottery has moved to another part of town and with a small outlet shop on its orginal site in the centre of town.

I will add this information as soon as I have verified my facts. --Paulw99 18:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Many spelling mistakes noted in this item about Poole Pottery and I would suggest it needs going through again when someone has time to correct them. Paulw99 21:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Twintone" correction made: see http://www.twintone.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.206.194 (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Poole signs

I was brought up in Poole and I recall that the "Welcome to Poole" signs at entrances to the town were made from Poole Pottery tiles; I was last there around 10 years ago and there was at least one left; can someone confirm its still there - if so, it seems a worthwhile addition to the article.

Apepper 10:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, having driven into Poole from various directions recently, the only one left is the one at the Sandbanks Ferry. But I have not carried out an exhaustive check. I wonder if this one has been listed - it should be! Abbeybufo (talk • contribs) 10:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Twintone web site

I fail to understand why the link to the Twintone.co.uk web site was removed. This site is 'work in progress' and contains valid information on this particular brand from Poole Pottery.

GlassyEye (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC) GlassyEye

It's an advert for a book? Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So the Poole Pottery web site, and associated link, is not commerical? This site (along with many, many thousands on Wikipedia) are wholly commercial, with the sole intention of selling to the masses. The Twintone.co.uk site has genuine information there to aid anyone who is interested in Poole Tableware, so why discriminate? If the site was a single page, solely for advertising the book then I would agree, but it offers far more than that and, as mentioned previously, is work in progress. Please leave the link in.

GlassyEye (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC) GlassyEye

Still looks like SPAM to me because the first page is just promoting a new book. Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected external link to useful content rather thanthe blatant book advert spam. Teapotgeorge^Talk 07:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Before using such emotive terms as "spam", it would be wise to firstly consult online reference sources. To quote Wikipedia: "Spam (electronic), unsolicited or undesired bulk electronic messages." The http://www.Twintone.co.uk site cannot therefore be termed as spam, under any condition - it is entirely up to the user if they 'click-through' to the site - it is a choice. Besides, as a researcher and published author, the need to find such (so-called) commercial sites is absolutely necessary and Wikipedia should encourage such web sites, not condemn them as "spam". On a similar point - are such "blatant" commercial sites such as Microsoft, Google, Amazon (which sells books), et al, prohibited from Wikipedia? Of course not, because they offer extraneous information that is useful - like the http://www.Twintone.co.uk web site, which was also produced initially as a reference site, with the book being decided upon later.

So when the definitive guide to Poole Twintone & Tableware is finally published, the question is, should Wikipedia ignore it? Naturally, this brings up various moot points - I am willing to wager money (and I am not a gambling man!) that there are thousands upon thousands of web sites linked to from Wikipedia, where books adn many other items are 'advertised' - but if the sites are also genuine reference sources, how can they be ignored? When such excellent sites, like books.Google.com (I forget the exact URL), actually link to books with the ability to view the entire content (in some cases), should such excellent resources be overlooked? However, I will concede that the aforementioned web sites are now ubiquitous in nature and it is impossible to ignore - but, again, should Twintone.co.uk be discriminating against?

As for linking this to some internal web site page, I will consult with "the powers that be" at Wikipedia about this. I would further suggest, respectfully, that on finding any supposed contentious point in future, you explore and discuss the relative merits before taking action.

Finally, because the link now points at the exact URL, the homepage will be amended, so that the book image is much less visible (the image will be a thumbnail), and redirect from here it to the 'about' page. The Wikipedia link will then be amended back to the homepage. I trust this will be acceptable, but you can easily e-mail me at Cortex Design if you have any objections.

GlassyEye (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC) GlassyEye

A further point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarperCollins - this is a link to a "blatant" commercial site, which actually publishes books. Does this site contain reference material or is it just flogging books? (a rhetorical question)

GlassyEye (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC) GlassyEye

Wikipedia policy states the following... You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines.

Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? Thank you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 11:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It is already in hand to add content on Twintone - time is not always on our hands to lend support to Wikipedia (the concept of which I wholly support). I will leave things 'as is' until we have more data to add. However, the policy you quote is very contradictory when referring to the HarperCollins example.

11:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC) GlassyEye

That rather confirms my suspicions that you are mainly concerned with promoting your new book rather than improving Wikipedia. Teapotgeorge^Talk

A rather absurd statement to make: the Twintone site clearly demonstrates that we are more than willing to disseminate information on the subject! Your previous statement that it was 'spam' has already been clearly refuted and thoroughly explained.

GlassyEye (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC) GlassyEye

my attempts to add a link

Hi, as a dedicated Poole collector I have tried to add a link to a pottery forum with a huge Poole thread containing hundreds of examples of Poole pottery and lots of info,this link has been deemed as spam?? I notice a link to a website set up by a collector who is just starting to learn about Poole pottery and wants to show people his collection has been accepted and not classed as spam, I find the decision making at Wikki to be illogical as my link is infinitely more informative than the existing one mentioned. Am I missing something? Theoriginaldantheman (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself...

Wikipedia policy states the following... You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines.

Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? Thank you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested link to rob's Poole pottery website

There's been a link to my website Http://www.robspoolepottery.co.uk from this page for several years now, although I have recently changed the web address. The rob's poole pottery website is intended to provide a personal perspective, but also provide a quite extensive information resource to people interested in Poole Pottery, I've maintained and updated it regularly for a few years,and my interest is primarily in promoting the enjoyment of Poole Pottery. As such I think the website provides considerably more information than could reasonably be provided on wikipedia. However, the link to the site has fairly recently been removed (since I updated the web address from my previous php) and identified as "self promoting spam". I can't argue with the self promotion accusation, but I would appreciate another contributor taking a look at the site to decide if a link should be added to the poole pottery entry and also added to the Truda Carter Wikipedia entry that I contributed a few months ago. I guess if someone else feels the link is justified I wouldn't be self promoting and hopefully it wouldn't be removed. Thanks Fantasticpottery (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Considering how important this pottery is, I am appalled at the poor quality of writing and sources here, at some point I will endeavour to improve it. Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)