Talk:Valley Ridge (Winter sports resort)

Companies House link

Not sure whether to remove it or not (as it doesn't work 24/7). Also, they regularly report accounts as overdue on companies, so any value from it implying that they're in trouble/naughty/etc. might not be that valid? By all keep it, but I'm jhust airing my concerns over the merit of having it. -- Ratarsed 16:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That Companies House says the accounts are overdue is inconsequential really. They report that accounts are overdue when they are not all the time. It would be more interesting if it said liquidated or dissolved etc. Cєlαя∂σяє^Talk 07:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just tried it during the website's working time, and the link is to the search page (I think it requires a session to work), so I've removed it. -- Ratarsed 12:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this has been vandalized.

This page seems to have been blanked with a fake message "This Page Has Been Removed For Violating Section 1a of WikiSecure" in an attempt to slip through the recent changes watch. Since this isn't the way pages are deleted on Wikipedia, and there is no Section 1a of WikiSecure, I am fairly certain this has been vandalized 76.28.77.142 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 4494 16-SNOASIS VIEW FINAL-3024839.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting disclosure

@Trickydicky500: has usefully drawn attention to the changed plans, but seems to have a determination to present these in the most positive possible light (repeated promotional material word for word) and denigrating the previous project (referring any opposition specifically to that). Given that TD500 is a new editor and has no edits on any other article, the question of a vested interest or conflict of interest arises. Kevin McE (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Kevin - I'm happy for you to edit it back. Just make it accurate, which it wasn't. I'm new to wikipedia, so I don't know everything about it, and frankly don't know how it works properly. I can see you re-edited my original edits, and I think you did a good job.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickydicky500 (talk • contribs)

What is important is that it is neutral, which is why I have felt it necessary to ask you to disclose whether you have links with the project or the company. I am aware that the article currently lacks any clarity over the timeframe of the sale of the site from Onslow to the current developers (or whether there was an intervening ownership), but all that was there before was an unattested claim that it had happened: maybe you can supply a reliable source on that.

But if there were objections to the development, they were objections to development of the site for this type of project, not to the original plans per se. If you want to give credit to Onslow for having changed things such that those are no longer an issue, that is fine, but do not try to present it as though the current plan would have been universally welcomed without the work that went before it: that is not WP:NPOV.

Copying blocks of text from promotional websites is also a breach of WP:NPOV and WP:COPYVIO. Kevin McE (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

In relation to the image, do you have permission from Valley Ridge and/or their architects " waiving all of their rights to the work worldwide under copyright law"? Kevin McE (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Kevin - what's important is it is accurate and not misleading. If you get both of those right, you will get a neutral article. As a local person, I see a big difference to this one, and the previous one (which was after all, drawn up in 2006 - although your article misleads people in the summary into thinking its a 2020 plan). I think you're wrong that the objections from the 2006 project can be carried over to the 2021 plans - because they are so different, and so I think you are misleading people in thinking these are the objections for this plan. But I suppose we'll find out whether there are lots of objections to these plans or not. You're right about not copying blocks of text - sorry, I did it because it was easy rather than anything else.— Preceding unsigned comment (again) added by Trickydicky500 (talk • contribs) but not logged in.

You still haven't responded as to whether you have a connection with the company, and if not, on what grounds you have their authority to waive copyright on their artwork. You seem to have a strength of preference for the latest edition over the earlier ones that is beyond what would be expected of an disinterested party.

"planning permission was applied for in 2004": how does that look like I am referring to a 2020 plan? I have changed the intro slightly. I at no point state that the objections were to the 2021 plans: they were objections to the overall project. The notion that wildlife conservation and traffic considerations would not have been raised if the current plans had been the first ones, or that the current plan has not incorporated allowance for those original objections, is laughable. Kevin McE (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Kevin - there is no point in continuing this conversation if you are going to be rude, and inaccurate at the same time. Please be temperate in your language. I am not objecting to leaving the opposition points in at all - they are, as you say, what opponents thought about the plans. All I am trying to do is get them to be in context - and I still think you're missing a trick here. In terms of your summary, you're just inaccurate, or the very best very misleading, by saying in the summary "approved after a 14 year process in April 2020" without putting the fact that they were first approved in 2008. I don't believe it's been submitted yet as well, so the next bit of the sentence is inaccurate as well. In terms of the image, it's been all over the BBC and the EADT, so I am presuming it can be uploaded to wikipedia - tell me if I'm wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickydicky500 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your talk page comments by using 4 tildes, and use colons to indent conversation threads. You uploaded an image by attaching the following authorisation: "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of their rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law." You have not answered my questions as to whether you have the right to do that. Newspapers and media pay handsomely for image rights, or are granted them by those who have a vested interest in getting publicity. Nor have you answered as to whether you have a vested interest in the project.

If an application is submitted in 2006 and final approval, after many intervening steps, is given in 2020, can that not be reasonably summarised as "plans approved after a 14 year process in April 2020"?

I am happy to remove the comment about the new plans being submitted. If they have not been, does that mean the previous plans are still on the table? Do we have any source as to whether they have been officially withdrawn? Kevin McE (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we've got off to a great start, so perhaps I can, with respect, remind you about three fundamental wikipedia policies.

The first is to be civil. Being civil "entails remaining polite and assuming good faith when interacting with others, and focusing on the content of edits rather than on personal issues. It requires participating in a respectful and considerate way, without ignoring the positions and conclusions of others. Assuming good faith means that we assume by default that other people's intentions are to improve the project. If criticism or moderation is needed, we discuss editors' actions but do not accuse them of harmful motives without clear evidence." I think this is important, and I would remind you that I have already told you that I am local. I think we should focus on getting a great wikipedia article, that's neutral :)

The second is verifiability. "Verifiability means that articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, such as reputable newspapers and scholarly journals. All content should ideally be supported by a citation, but content that is controversial or likely to be challenged will definitely require one! Unsourced material may be removed at any time, and it is the obligation of the editor adding material to provide a reliable source." The majority of the opposition stuff is unverifiable, because its so old and the links have gone. I am happy to edit it by consensus (another wikipedia policy), but otherwise I will start editing it in a weeks' time.

The third isn't a fundamental principle, but it's part of the preamble to newbies. It reads "Don't worry if you don't understand everything at first; it's fine to use common sense as you edit, and if you accidentally mess something up, another editor can always fix or improve it later." So my bad for not using colons and tildes until now. Hopefully I've got it right this time.

On to specifics:

1. In terms of the opposition stuff, if you want to edit it to bring it into community guidelines, please be my guest. I'm going to have a go in a weeks' time if you haven't done it. Or you can suggest edits here if you wish.

2. In terms of the approval process, it was given final approval in 2008, by the Secretary of State. That's a verifiable source (I'm sure I linked it previously). All other approvals either renewed the approval (planning permissions require constant reapproval if they haven't built); or put added detail on (reserve matters), which is what the 2016 application / 2020 approval was about. So it's misleading to write it how you have done. However, thank you for rewriting the summary para sentence. It's nearly there :). If you haven't done it, I'll amend it at some stage, just not today.

3. To address your question, previous consents don't need to be officially withdrawn, so the previous plans could still be built. However, the developer has signalled his intention that they would prefer to build the new version.

4. I'm going to delete the image, for now, and look into the policies for images properly.

Here goes for signing this properly. No idea if this will work.Trickydicky500 (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to indent, but if you use the same number of colons as the previous editor, there is no differentiation in page position. Congratulations on repeating the successful signing that you did on your first talk page post. You state that you are new here, while I have more than 40 thousand edits over 15 years, so let's drop the passive aggressive rule notifications.

You have still not provided a simple yes or no to the question of whether you have an involvement in the scheme. You are not forbidden from editing the article if you do, but if you do you should declare it, and take care not to edit in a promotional manner. If you do not, then your apparent wish to use highly promotional language for the new plans, and to dissociate these from the objections to such a development, seems unusual and non-neutral.

I am not sure what you consider to fall outside Wikipedia guidelines in the section on objections: each paragraph is referenced to a BBC page, and that is generally considered to be a reliable source. If you have info about whether the new plans are equally committed to overcoming the objections, a reliable third party source for that would be helpful. I wouldn't have written that section the way it is, and it has a couple of deadlinks, but they can stay, but in what way does it need editing "to bring it into community guidelines"?

I was trying to cut down on the committee room jargon of reserve matters etc, because I don't believe that in the long run they are important for the average reader wanting to know about a holiday park: I will rephrase the lead again, and hope that it gives a clearer picture. Kevin McE (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the reasons why these articles are so inaccurate is because, when people do try to edit them, in all good faith, they get pilloried. Is it worth it? Probably not. Jimmy Wales put in some great policies, but do his wiki-editors follow them, or even read them, or remember them? Who knows? Trickydicky500 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"To pillory:to criticize harshly and to expose to public ridicule." I don't know where you think this has happened.

Which of the great policies do you believe is not being followed?

And why have you continued to refuse to state whether you are involved in the project? Kevin McE (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Dead in the water?

After the Oct 2022 decision to extend the landfill licence, it appears that the plans are abandoned. @Juliangrainger21: edited to that effect in April 2023, but the link is dead. Valleyridge.com still exists as a website, but still suggests opening in 2023/3, so that is obviously not being maintained. I see nothing from any media source about the developers having admitted defeat: I guess if they have just walked away without saying anything there is nothing for the media to report on. Is that why we have nothing citable? The county council decision was said at the time to be liable for calling in (presumably review) by Dept for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and that a final decision notice would not be issued until there was confirmation that that would not happen: does anyone know the current status of that?

I suspect that the concept is in the same state as the Norwegian Blue Parrot, but is there any source that can confirm what has happened since October last? Kevin McE (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)