Talk:Egremont, Cumbria

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

CCHT external link[edit]

This link was added to the article after discussion on the WP Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See: WP:RSN exercise. No information from the CCHT link has been put into the body of the article as citations because the information has not yet been verified for 100% accuracy by the Victoria County History project for Cumbria. (This will take several years to do). Laplacemat (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Seems to be some disagreement on appropriate links for this article. I have therefore added in a link to the "official" website, which meets the criteria of WP:EL and has a useful list of links itself. It would be helpful to those proposing links to say why you disagree rather than "rv linkspam" or "I've deleted it". It is difficult to see why linking to a local newspaper is considered so unacceptable, although linking to individual organisations is not sustainable (unless the organisation is significant enough to be mentioned in the article, ie it is something that makes the town famous outside, such as the gurning competition). Halsteadk (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article protection[edit]

I've protected the page for a week, because of lack of agreement in regard to the external links. I suggest that editors establish consensus on the talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you absolutely sure the best way involves protecting the entire article from editing by every user? The article is hardly being brought to its knees by the addition or not of an external link, but as a consequence there is no opportunity to work on the important part of the article (ie all of the rest of it). I am pretty neutral on whether this link appears or not, but as you have already had your perma-banning of the user concerned rapidly overturned as heavy-handed I can't help feeling you should pass handling of this case to another administrator. Halsteadk (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the link itself goes, I was initially happy to have it but less so when I noticed the virtually hidden text stating the political affiliation. Yes, all papers have a political bias but unless a paper is affiliated to a political party it doesn't describe itself like this. However, the content of the newspaper itself does not appear to be overtly biased. I would suggest the link stays if there is genuinely no other newspaper for Egremont, but it must be removed if the organisation it is affiliated to loses its seat - as it could then only be a campaigning paper. Halsteadk (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the protection of the page was massively inappropriate. I suggest immediate un-protection. Jeni (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone the protection. However, I still recommend that editors use the talk page to establish consensus, instead of reverting. PhilKnight (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I've reblocked the user who insists on adding the link without first establishing consensus. Although I accept the protection was unusual, I'd have preferred to use protection, instead of re-blocking. PhilKnight (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I hope everyone's happy with my note added about the Crab Fair. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. Thanks for adding the references. The greasy pole event takes place in the Main Street, according to this ref(p3). I'll tweak the text accordingly. Thanks. Hallucegenia (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper or spam?[edit]

I am surprised that editors here would even consider allowing an external link to any political party's free news sheet, especially with a general election due within the year. Even if the content is innocuous now that could change at any time. If one party is able to do it other parties will rightly claim the same facility, including fringe and extremist parties.

Wikipedia is not intended to be a source of information on current events. Recentism is depracated. Wikipedia is not a collection of links or a community webpage.--Charles (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user Chacufc has requested that the link, of which he is the sole known proponent, be deleted, so I have done so, along with some other work.--Charles (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed New Layout[edit]

It seems to me that the lead paragraph is too long, and that this article would benefit from rearranging somewhat. Unless anyone has any objections, I shall move most of the lead to the article itself and create two new sections:

  • Situation (including the geography info and town layout)
  • Community (including the schools and band info)

I will also move the barony section to after the town history section.

The new lead will look something like: Egremont is an historic market town in the county of Cumbria, England, south of Whitehaven. It is noted for its ruined castle and for hosting the World Gurning Championships.

Hallucegenia (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that the lead is too long, although it could be tidied up. The proposal is far too brief. A lead paragraph should be a summary of the following material, written to draw the readers interest to the main article. This is not undue repetition but is good practice. Have a look at some of the featured articles shown daily on the front page to see this in action.
By all means reorganise the rest of the article.--Charles (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, thanks for the interest. I will expand the proposed lead to include at least sentences about the gurning; the castle; the town layout; iron ore mining; industrial heritage; Wyndham School; the Barony. Are there any other points that should be included in the lead? I do not think that the names of the 3 primary schools, for instance, belong there; and I very much doubt if Richard de Luci cared at all about the street layout of Egremont. Hallucegenia (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the lead is not excessive but content wise the first paragraph is all useful, as is the last line re the town's current economy. A list of schools should not be in the lead but if the town has a particularly high proportion of schools with a wide catchment (especially if it attracts pupils from other local towns, not just villages - ie more so than would be expected from a town in a rural area) then it's relevant to mention along with the current economy that it is a local centre for education. The existence of a brass band is purely incidental and was probably put there by someone with a direct interest in the band - no question that this should be removed from the lead, it's no more notable than any other organisation and they cannot all be listed in this manner. The fact (or not) that Richard de Lucy cared about the street layout should be referenced - if it can't be referenced then he probably didn't care much and that should be removed. A distance from Whitehaven would also be useful. Halsteadk (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hallucegenia (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now propose to add a sentence, with citation, to the "Community and Culture" section as follows: "Egremont has a dedicated town newspaper, published by the local Labour party, and delivered free to thousands of addresses in the town several times a year." In view of the recurring edit wars on this article, I would like to reach consensus here before adding this. Hallucegenia (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. A tricky one this I think. Is "newspaper" a correct term for a publication that is clearly not the product of normal journalism, however independent that may or may not be? I have abstracted some salient points from comments by Halsteadk on the talk page of Chacufc. "the key differentiating fact.... is that this paper describes itself as "Labour's voice", ie it is presumably written or published by the local Labour party or local Labour-run council. While most newspapers have some sort of political leanings (though at a local level probably more to support local general opinion of a successful or failing local government), very few of those are actually produced by the political party or local council! There doesn't seem to be any notably biased information on there now but the questions have to be asked: what stories that paint the local council in a bad light are they NOT including; will the paper become more biased and a "campaigning paper" in the run up to the election." I think this sums it up very well. Some qualification would be needed I think, perhaps "newspaper-style publication".--Charles (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Something like "newspaper-style publication" would be better. "Freesheet" might work too. I'll leave this discussion open for a few days before doing anything.Hallucegenia (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said it and "freesheet" works for me.--Charles (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. Feel free to revert and discuss further here if there are any objections. Hallucegenia (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a couple of independent newspapers and found a couple of references to the local sheet in government documents which are more independent.--Charles (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Hallucegenia (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the additional information from these new references. Who would have thought that a town rag would have so many independent reliable sources? Hallucegenia (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added and have now re-instated references to support the assertion that the paper has a circulation of several thousand and to support the claim that it is published by Egremont and District Labour party. These are valid citations, and not external links: if you wish to change them, please discuss them here first. The previous references so kindly supplied by Charles only support the claims that the paper was, in 2003, finanically supported by Copeland Constituency Labour Party, and that its treasurer is David Southward MBE. Hallucegenia (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something that is pushed through peoples letterboxes whether they want it or not does not qualify as a newspaper or a circulation. Using the link as a reference source is not an independent source or a necessity.--Charles (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Egremont, Cumbria. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Egremont, Cumbria. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Egremont, Cumbria. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Egremont,_Cumbria&oldid=1196549848"