Talk:Wells, Somerset

Speculation

This article contains an inordinate amount of pure speculation! Can anyone confirm or deny any of the claims? akaDruid 16:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This article gives the population of the City of London as 8000, whereas the City of London article itself says less than 9000. I don't know which is more accurate. Madda 10:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wells is certainly generally considered to be the smallest city in England, since London is only a part of the largest conurbation in England and the city (as opposed to "The City") is usually considered to be the whole of Greater London, as in any other world city. -- Necrothesp 17:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Using what is considered to be a city globally also doen't work as definitions vary and, in some jurasdictions, an urban area with incorporated governing body and that covers towns in the the UK which are not considered cities. It needs to be specifically defined as the smallest city not within a surrounding conurbation, simplt saying smallest city "apart from the City of London" without clarification is confusing to any reader who may not understand the dintinction between the City of London and the greater conurbation. Dainamo (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

England's smallest city

As it stands just now, this section is simply a load of shite, sorry but it is:

It is England's smallest city with a population of around 10,000. It is the second smallest city in the UK after a city in Wales, St. Davids, and the third smallest city in the world (the smallest city in the world being in America)The square mile of the city of London is acutely smaller than Wells. Thus Wells is in fact the second smallest city in England.

1. How can somewhere be the second smallest city in the UK and England when the smallest is in Wales?! By reading this paragraph you'd come to the possible conculsion it's the 3rd smallest.
2. Many cities in the US are under 10k in population - it's quite normal given city status is basically just an incorporated local government. For example I drove through Calvert, Texas last week, a city with just 1,426 population - and it wasn't the smallest city I went through.
3. References? WP:CITE?

I'm minded to remove or seriously trim this section... Thanks/wangi 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this discussion and just posted this in reply to somebody else adding this claim:

Hi, I have reverted your edit to the Wells article because:

• Many jurisdictions define any incorporated settlement as a city, meaning that in the United States, for example, there are thousands of cities smaller than Wells
• Even if we're only counting cathedral cities rather than legal cities, it took me seconds to find four that are smaller than Wells: The Vatican, St Davids, Kilkenny and Cobh.

Unless you can provide a reference to the contrary, I have to conclude that it's false. Joe D (t) 00:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that referring to Wells in a world context is difficult, but search the Internet for "England's smallest city" and every result points to Wells. I think it is a justified claim to put that on the page. --Cheesy Mike 07:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wells is to the South of the Mandips - It doesnt nestle in the Mendip Hills - It is not surrounded by the hills -

Wells lies on the edge of the Mendip Hills, neither does it sit on the Mendip hills proper nor does it lie on the Somerset Levels, the nearby towns of Midsomer Norton and Radstock can be described as nestling. In Britain most cities happen to be the largest settlements in a locality, and are acknowledged by both the state and the people to have an important economic, political, or cultural significance. Wells is not the largest settlement in the area but has economic, political and cultural significance due to the presence of the cathedral. The City of London is part of the conurbation of Greater London, and is therefore widely discounted as a city in its own right, similarly to the British, Vatican City is part of Rome. Kilkenny has a population twice the size of Wells, and Cobh is no longer acknowledged by the Irish state. (Chaz smith (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

Picture for infobox

I think this article deserves to have a picture put into the infobox to appear at the top of the page - but which one should it be, either from those already in the article or form the related Commons category?— Rod ^talk 19:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely should have a picture, though there isn't a great deal of really good, generally representative pictures to choose from. I just swapped the picture of Vicars close for a much better shot. The West Front is an obvious choice, File:Wells - Pennyless Porch.JPG is a more appealing pic from the one we currently have taken in the market place, though it doesn't show the market, but then the current one isn't exactly great. File:Vicars Close - Wells Cathedral.jpg is kind of striking because of the sky, but it leads the eye out of the page. I have a bunch of pics I took last year still to upload, but I don't think there is anything too exciting there either.--Derek Andrews (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OK I've added the one of Pennyless Porch you suggested - we can always change it later when we get a brilliant one.— Rod ^talk 20:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I just uploaded File:Chain gate Wells.jpg, File:Bishop's Barn, Wells.jpg, File:Brown's Gatehouse.jpg, File:Penniless Porch.jpg ‎. I have some more of Vicars Close and some of the Almshouses, but they will need to wait for another day. --Derek Andrews (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added File:Wells from cathedral tower.jpg to the article below (between Geography and Demography) for now. I thought about using it for the infobox, but at 240px the city view is just too small IMO. I also just uploaded File:Aerial view of Wells.jpg to commons, that might be a possibility, although it might be considered by some to be too cathedral-centric for this article. It would be nice to add it somewhere though, it's a rather good image; at this point I'm not sure where to put it so I'll defer to those who've been doing the bulk of the work here. Wine Guy~Talk 07:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - nice pictures. I would probably use the aerial view in the infobox. Do you have similar photos for other Somerset towns/villages? I'm currently trying to work this up to GA standard & tend to reorganise the pics (& lead) last, so I will have a shuffle around to stop "pinching" the text at some point.— Rod ^talk 08:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice pic, but not infobox material due to the odd angle. I have remove the pixel size while it is in the body of the article. Wikipedia's manual of style is quite prescriptive on image size. If people want more detail then they can click to get it. If it doesn't show up well at smaller sizes then it simply isn't the right image to have in the article. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I based the decision to increase the pixel size on MOS:IMAGES: Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate ... Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image. It seemed perfectly appropriate to me, but I'm not going to argue the point. Wine Guy~Talk 08:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What else for GA

I've been editing this article to try to bring it closer to the guidelines at WP:UKCITIES and would be interested in what other editors think is need to get it to meet the Wikipedia:Good article criteria? Obviously we need to expand the lead to summarise the article & reference (or remove) the uncited claims, but is there anything else which would be required?— Rod ^talk 22:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've now changed the pictures, as discussed above, and tried to tidy up other parts. I've expanded the lead a bit, but this might still need more per WP:LEAD. Is there anything else which people think is still needed?— Rod ^talk 15:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wells/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead could easily be somewhat longer.

• Expanded— Rod ^talk 13:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Throughout the whole article, there are a lot of one-sentence and one-line paragraphs. These should be merged to create paragraphs with a decent lengths. At their current length, sections like 'economy', 'transport' and 'culture' could simply be merged to a single paragraph.

• Done

• There are several unreferenced statements, and almost whole sections (e.g. economy) are unreferenced.

• Refs added

• In this instance, England should probably be wikilinked. There has been a lot of criticism of overlinking counties, but for a geographic locale, it is highly plausible that some readers may want to read about the country it is located. This does not mean that counties further down in the list should be linked (like France or Germany).

• Done - although I thought the consensus was that England is a well known term throughout the world & linking wasn't appropriate.

• The question to ask is: is it plausible that any reader of this article would want to look up England, based on the context of this article? For an article about a city in England, this is highly plausible. For a train station, perhaps not. For a by-sentence mention in an article about bicycles, probably not. There has always been a lot of disagreement about this, even at featured level, and there is certainly no consensus, although perhaps one side may have a majority in some instances.

• The lead focuses around the city status, rather than summarizing the article. Terms like "although" should not be used like this, and the whole mentioning of a letter from the queen in 1974 is very off topic. This all belongs in the history section.
• "second smallest" should have a hyphen.

• Done

• You write "the City", although 'city' is undoubtedly a common noun and since it is not part of the official name of Wells, I cannot see it can be capitalized.

• Done

• Titles such as "bishop" are only capitalized either if a) directly in front of the name (Bishop Robert) or 2) part of a full title (the Bishop of Bath and Wells).

• Done

• As the article covers a British topic, use British date formatting, i.e. DD Month YYYY. See WP:Dates.

• Do you mean ion the referencing or an I missing something?

• Think I've spotted & fixed this one now.— Rod ^talk 12:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Except WWII, no non-railway history from the 20th century? I would presume this would have been a period with large population growth and industrialization.
• MEP needs to be written out, not an acronym. I doubt an average American or Australian knows what a MEP is (although the British probably would, we are writing for a world audience here).

• Done

• The economy section mentions tourism. Are there any numbers?

• Not that I can find

• The economy section fails to explain what Wells "lives off". Is Wells a suburb of a larger metropolitan area which people commute to, or is it a regional center that is the source of commuting? Any industry (only so many people can make cheddar cheese), service companies etc? Any of the companies with major facilities or based in Wells notable? It seems like education is a big thing, so perhaps mention the employment of teachers?

• The tourism supports a lots of jobs, bars, restaurants B&Bs etc. The article does say the travel to work area - I suspect others travel to Bath & Bristol (I know a few but that is OR) but I can't find any sources which say this or any numbers for teachers etc

• Don't need to link 'listed building' more than once.

• Done

• 'West Country Carnival' is mentioned in the text, so it should not be in the see also section.

• Done

• Civic ties section should probably just be part of the 'governance' section, not its own subsection.

• Done

• IMDB is generally not a good source, and should only be used for non-trivial, non-plot, non-review issues where no other sources exist. Are there no better references out there?

• Not that I can find & it is only used to say it was a filming location.— Rod ^talk 11:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Placing article on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I will pass the article. Interesting place, I will surely try to visit it if I ever pass through Somerset. If you are considering featured status, I think that the economy section needs a bit more fill for those people, but it should be sufficient for GA. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What about Siduri Books ?

Hello. This editor says the business is based in Wells [1] (a bibliographical notice from the British Library gives "Draycott", but it is not far away) : "Siduri Books, a family-run business based in Wells in Somerset, was founded in 2008." Isn't it worth a mention ? Jacques Goliot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.9.146.199 (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No. A book publisher with two books on its list is on par with dozens of other non-notable businesses in the area. Derek Andrews (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

• Wels → Wells, Somerset
• Wells (disambiguation) → Wells

– This place looks adorable, and I love Hot Fuzz, but it's just nowhere near WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for such a common term. It's entirely possible that Google is Americanizing my results, but I get a grand total of two hits for the English city in the first 5 pages of wells -wikipedia. Nothing in the first give pages of a Books search either, where H. G. Wells and Ida B. Wells dominate. Also, the term is sufficiently ambiguous that the corresponding category is Category:Wells, Somerset. --BDD (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support "Wells" should be a disambiguation page, and I would argue that the primary topic of "wells" is being the plural of "well", which would be about gas, oil, or water wells. -- 70.24.244.51 (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I have been expecting this request since the category was renamed back in 2009. Although I am more interested in the city than other uses I can't really object. If this move goes ahead would Wells (disambiguation) become the target of Wells? if so can we leave the first line as a link to the city and can we assume a bot or other mechanism would deal with the hundreds/thousands of links, and what about the category on commons which is currently titled "Wells, England"?— Rod ^talk 11:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Wells (disambiguation) would move to Wells, yes. I should've formatted this as a multi-move. I'm not sure about the Commons category; that's really up to them. --BDD (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Primary topic arguments are usually petty, messy and based on little more than personal opinion. However, the name/word "wells" is sufficiently ambiguous and ubiquitous to cause confusion, and that should perhaps be the argument that is concentrated upon, rather than primary topic. I would support the move, with "Wells" becoming a disambiguation page.--Rushton2010 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• Weak support based solely on consistency. I don't place much weight on the argument given for the proposal. When I search for Wells, Wells Fargo is tops, but the first page of results shows three results to the UK city, though I don't think this is a good test anyway. Anyone searching Wikipedia for a surname, other than something like Obama or Churchill, deserves whatever they get if they don't use a first name or some other identifier. Likewise anyone doing a search using a plural form of a common word may not get too far either. That pretty much leaves the place names, and I would put Wells in the lead in terms of seniority and importance. I really don't see much diffrence between this and York, London etc. I agree with Rod that the city should be first line on any dab page, and the need for a bot to fix current links. --Derek Andrews (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong disagree Having read around this a little I now disagree with this move. I believe Wells meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; all types of well are discounted by WP:PLURAL, and people are discounted by WP:NCP which requires both first and last name. Unlike WP:USPLACE, WP:UKPLACE only uses county for disambiguation when necessary. I agree somewhat with User:Rushton2010's comment, but this is dealt with adequately by the hatnote. To be quite frank, I think that anyone who ends up at Wells when they meant H. G. Wells or oil wells needs to take this as a mind-widening learning opportunity. Given this and the point that Rod made about the massive disruption of links, I think this move is both unnecessary and unwise. --Derek Andrews (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
    • There is no discounting of plurals by WP:PLURAL. WP:PLURAL only concerns what the title of the page is where a subject has a plural form, should use a singular form, it does not mean that the most common usage of the plural form is not being the plural of a singular formed article name. -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I ditto that; Derek Andrews, we do indeed count plural forms when determining primary topic despite WP:PLURAL (which only tells us what the final name of the article should be, not whether or not there is primary topic for the plural form). See also Bones and Talk:Bones (disambiguation), or Cats if you like pictures of kitties (and who doesn't?). Red Slash 04:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support a move to Wells, Somerset. For whatever reason, we don't tend to use England to naturally disambiguate if I recall. (See Bath, Somerset.) I thought well would easily be the primary topic... then I looked at that disambiguation page, and WOW, it's a doozy. And then I see that Water well isn't even the primary topic for well! Okay, I give in, no primary topic. Red Slash 04:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)