Jump to content

Talk:Shaftesbury

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

Welsh

[edit]

Someone has added the 'welsh' name of the town, I am a little confused to why this has happened and have not yet had a reply from the editor involved. I have just taken it off until the relevance of giving welsh names to places outside of wales can be clarified. --Curuxz (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rescued refs

[edit]

I was wondering why there were [2] and [3] in the history section and traced it back to some vandalism and "non-wikified" repair. Fixed by getting the refs from this diff in case anybody wonders. Huw Powell (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Take a look at articles such as Bath, Somerset, or Bristol. You won't see external links to the local theatre there. Nor will you see lightweight "town websites" which are directories of local businesses or events. Most town/city articles need little more than the local council - in the case of this site that is http://www.shaftesburydorset.com/ - and some other well chosen and notable sites which meet the criteria set out in WP:ELNO - especially the very first one. Everything else should be taken out. If there are links that of value then consider putting a link to DMOZ (the Open Directory) on the site, and/or or to Wikitravel if the town is a tourist destination. I really don't see how http://www.shaftesburytown.co.uk/ could possibly meet the criteria for inclusion. --Simple Bob (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I take the point about the theatre, but referring to it as a spam page when it is free (and the so called official one charges for certain types of listing) is not showing good faith. I would also point out that the UK Government directgov website lists this equally along side shaftesburydorset (see http://www.dorsetforyou.com/343604) as well as it being on DMOZ. Bath is a little different in its greater size and lack of local controversy about webpages (Which has in previous years been in the press in Shaftesbury). I feel that after arguments about this in the past a consensus was reached on this talk page and the concept of both links had been widely accepted (see archives), a consensus you unilaterally broke removing the links. I would ask it be kept on in the state that everyone was happy with for the last few years until your desire to remove it has been properly mooted on the talk page. Regards --Curuxz (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of image

[edit]

The following discussion has been copied from my own talk page (User talk:PaleCloudedWhite), where it originally took place. The discussion followed the addition and removal of an image on 19th January 2012. The discussion has been slightly amended here, to remove text which could be confusing in this context. A slightly different form of this discussion has also been copied on to the Gold Hill talk page. [This notice posted by PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)][reply]

The discussion proceeded as follows:

There are a number of reasons why my picture has more quality than the previous one (taken in bright sunshine but without any black whatsoever). It has to do with the quality of the lens and the camera, the amount of pixels, contrast, sharpness and the improvements while processing the picture in Adobe Photoshop CS5. I hope you are somebody who can be persuaded by arguments. If I can't convince you, check with somebody who knows about photography. No hard feelings though... :-) Thundercloud (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas in principal I can always be persuaded by arguments, when considering images my concern is always the appearance of the image, not the means by which it was produced, and although it is true that my monitor is currently not reproducing colours faithfully (leaving my judgement of images a little weakened), I still feel that your pic is too dark. Furthermore I prefer the composition of the pre-existing image - in your pic the houses are more distant and in my view the wall on the right is too dominant. However in a "one versus one" situation such as this, it is probably advisable to canvass a bit of extra opinion, so I shall seek that from some of the other WikiProject Dorset members. Thankyou for your politeness. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a picture taken without sunshine is always darker... It represents the amount of light present at the time the picture was taken. For me, the abbey wall is an important part of Gold Hill, but this is only my opinion... :-) Thundercloud (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with PCW here. You are right, Thundercloud, the Abbey wall is important, but this is difficult to convey in one image. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict) I also agree that the wall is an important component of Gold Hill, but the effect on the composition in Thundercloud's pic is to draw the eye to a point at the foot of the wall's buttresses (where the lines of the street and the wall converge), whereas in the pic in the sunshine the eye is drawn to the line of houses. Also the pic in the sunshine more closely resembles the classic image of Gold Hill, and therefore is in my view also preferable on that account. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar with Gold Hill myself, so I can't comment on which photo has a better composition. I will say, however, that I think the brighter photo looks better in the page than the darker photo. It's a lot easier to pick out features within the brighter photo. That being said, I think the darker photo is generally superior at full resolution. Could it perhaps be lightened to look better in the thumbnail? Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My aim is to reflect reality and the weather conditions at the given time. I try to discuss the "quality" of the picture (less sunshine=less brightness) and a picture with much more resolution always includes more detail. Thundercloud (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like Thundercloud's image too but not as much, sorry Thundercloud. One reason for using images is to convey additional information (and there is more information in Thundercloud's photograph) but another reason is to attract people to the article and a 'prettier' picture will do that more successfully. Ykraps (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS I understand how disappointing it is to have one of your photos replaced as it happened to me, for reasons I still can't fathom today.

I think the brighter image is the better option for the lead thumbnailed image. I find the wall intrudes a bit too much into Thundercloud's image and is a little bit distracting. There's a collection of images on the commons so I've created a category (which includes Thundercloud's image) and added a link to the Gold Hill article. Barret (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't regret the replacement of my picture - I've stated my case :-) and as long as there is exchanges of opinions and reasoning, I don't see why my view should overrule everybody's else's. Sorry for my poor English... Thundercloud (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
uw Engels is better dan mijn Nederlands--Ykraps (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Font

[edit]

Shaston redirects here, but it's also the name of the system font of the Apple IIgs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Memorial Hospital

[edit]

The A & E department was downgraded to a daytime only minor injuries department when West Dorset Healthcare took over responsibility for the hospital. Richard Avery (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shaftesbury. 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, 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 11:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shaftesbury. 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) 12:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shaftesbury. 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) 11:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Shaftesbury. 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) 12:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shaftesbury&oldid=1203752514"