Talk:Bridport

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

WikiProject UK geography overhaul[edit]

There is some great information in this article but I think it may need a bit of an overhaul. The introduction section is far too large - much of it needs to be put into a 'history' section. The grammar could use some attention in a few places. If anyone reads this then feel free to comment! Sevengoods (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To make my point - our introduction is longer than that of London! I'm going to take a better photo for the town too, the best view is from south steet looking towards the town hall IMO.--Sevengoods (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm bringing this article in line with the UK geography WikiProject. If you wish to contibute please read Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. As per the guidelines I've added the sections:

  • Geography - combined suburbs and surrounding villages
  • Industry and Commerce (Economy was the alternative, but I&C seemed to fit better) - moved from intro
  • Education
  • Notable People - moved from introduction

I've completed the changes in multiple edits for the convenience of other editors.--Sevengoods (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Ruby Stabbings[edit]

I propose removing the stabbing parts in November 2008 when it has been a year since Ruby was detained and two and abit years since the stabbings themselves. Other users have tried to remove it on many occasions and as it hangs over the town I can see why but we can’t add only pleasant info as that would be removing the truth..d1169254 (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2008 (BST)

I strongly concur. I don't think the information has a place anywhere in the article, let alone the LEAD section. The lead section is designated as a summary of significant information. Whoever wants this in the article I suggest you peruse Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements and find a suitable place to put it. Just because an event makes the national news for two days, years ago, does not make it make it RELEVANT or SIGNIFICANT to the town it occurred in.
Can we end the revert war now? I'm guessing its the one person who wrote the entry vs. everyone else.--Sevengoods (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, so if we set a date everyone should be happy and we can't be accused of censorship. d1169254 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2008 (BST)
No time like the present, but I guess we could give it a week for anyone else to pipe up. 28th june?--Sevengoods (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be arsed any more.. Its gone.. d1169254 (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2008 (BST)

References to entry on Bridport Dorset[edit]

Entry on Bridport Dorset has frequent references to Bettey often with a page number but no obvious bookname. Can you amplify this reference.86.130.178.159 (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC) G Allen86.130.178.159 (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look under the 'References' section near the bottom of the page, then look under 'General references' near the bottom of that section. The book details are there. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the current Info box Image with a newer less pixelated version[edit]

There is a photo on the current info box on the Bridport Article, but I would like to change it to something newer and less pixelated.

  • I propose removing the current photo, seen left, with the photo seen right.
  • I have previously admitted to User:PaleCloudedWhite that my one, on the right was hazy in the thumbnail view, which I now take back.
  • The 'atmospheric conditions' of the image are not hazy, User:PaleCloudedWhite said it was hazy, and when compared to the current one, it is of much better quality and shows much more scope (view) of the town.
  • It was previously said by User:PaleCloudedWhite that my image was not a 'particularly good quality image' and when compared with the image right, I believe that my is much better and less pixelated.
  • When you look back at both revisions, I hope you'll see that my is more relevant and fitting to the article.
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bridport&oldid=733561885 (my edit)
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bridport&oldid=733398696 (Current)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MajesticEli (talk • contribs) 14:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat what I have stated previously on my talk page, namely that your proposed new image is hazy and consequently less good than the existing image. Also the proposed image reduces all the buildings to such a small size that little is readily identifiable, except perhaps to natives of the town, whereas the existing image shows the main thoroughfare and the town hall, which is probably the most iconic building in the town. The problem of the hazy image and its small size of buildings is demonstrated more clearly when the images are viewed at the size they would appear in the infobox, rather than the enlarged images shown above. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:PaleCloudedWhite, Did you care to compare the two? I still believe that my is of better quality, not pixelated, newer and not 'hazy', it's of better quality. My image is not bad quality, it was just taken from a distance. The current image was taken technically right next to the town hall and still pixelated. I hope the image can change back to my one, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bridport&oldid=733398032 (my edit)
Yes of course I compared the two - that was the basis for my comments. The issue of image quality is not just a question of how pixelated or not an image is - there are other factors such as composition, subject clarity, colour and contrast etc. In my view the original image is a better composition, shows the subject more clearly and draws the eye more readily because it contains greater contrast of light and shade which makes it stand off the page better. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:PaleCloudedWhite, First of all the clarity of my image is by far much better than the current one, second, about the current one, you say it has 'greater contrast of light and shade which makes it stand off the page better' ??? Look back at the two, I believe that my, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bridport&oldid=733561885 stands off the page better because of it being panoramic it catches the eye more, it gives the viewer of the article more info about the towns surrounding and georgrapy, not just the Town Hall and West Street. There are plenty of over articles about towns that do the same I did with a panoramic image or at least a selection of images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajesticEli (talk • contribs) 20:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at both images and in commons. It is disappointing how few worthwhile images there are in commons. Neither IMHO of the two in question are ideal. geography.org.uk - 47461 has bunting, cars and street furniture distracting from the essentials and is a small file not capable of enlargement. Bridport in 2016.png looks hazy, not perhaps because the image is hazy or out of focus, but likely because it was taken at a time and on a day (last Saturday) when conditions were not ideal, or alternatively the levels are such that there is not enough contrast. It would benefit from cropping to remove some of the area on the left taken by a bush and if re-taken careful positioning to remove the nettle that crosses the buildings. A view of the town from a vantage point is useful. On balance the status quo anti should be kept until an improved version of the new image is available. It is nice to find someoneUser:MajesticEli who cares enough to go out and take good images.SovalValtos (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:SovalValtos for letting me know, I will try again sometime. I'm glad you agree the vantage point is useful, and I plan to take a photo like it in the future. Thanks User:PaleCloudedWhite for responding to my comments and engaging in this debate. I hope to work with both of you.

Panoramic image on the geography section[edit]

I just wanted to know what you thought about this, do you think it should be on the Bridport article, at the bottom of the geography section?

  • The image is below, below that is the full geography section with the panoramic image
Townscape[edit]
Panoramic view of Bridport. Taken from Allington Hill, Allington in July 2016.
It's too large. Remember that images are supposed to illustrate and support the text, not dominate the page. I'm not wishing to discourage you from editing and adding pictures, but you seem to be approaching this the wrong way round: editors should ascertain what images an article needs and then seek out such images to add, whereas you seem to be trying to find ways to add your images to the article. Why not take pictures of some of the events in the town, as I suggested on my talk page? Or take a better picture of the arts centre? - the current one in the article is cut off at the bottom. Or even take an image of the bypass, the old railway line or the A35, to illustrate the transport section? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A general view of the town from a vantage point could be included in the Geography section, replacing the image of the Jurassic cliffs [1] which are a bit off topic not being of Bridport or directly of the West Bay harbour part. A thumb nail, which could always be clicked on to enlarge, would be best. Let us see what other editors think in the next week or so, by which time User:MajesticEli you may have been able to take your planned better version on a less hazy day. Please sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~).SovalValtos (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am not averse to a panoramic shot in the geography section, but it needs to be clear at thumbnail size, or, if larger, to be of very good quality and ideally illustrate something specific in the text. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One of the geographical features of the Bridport area is the preponderence of surrounding hills, almost all of them steep and often almost conical - due to the geology of Bridport Sands capped by Inferior Oolite. I probably have a source that mentions this and could use it to expand the text, which currently mentions the geology but doesn't connect that to the shape of the landforms. Having a picture which illustrates this well would be a good addition (I know that the panorama shown above also shows something of the hills, but as mentioned before it isn't the best image when at smaller size, and anyway I think an improved version could be supplied - perhaps having foreground which reveals the hills are all around the town, not just on one side?). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understand completely, I will get around to taking a better photo on a less hazy day and the crop it so it is the same width but different height or just have a better quality one as a thumbnail. I also have plans to go to West Bay or Dorchester in the coming days, so I do have plans to take some more pictures, such as the old railway line or the A35. I live in Bridport so taking a picture of the Arts Centre would be easier than the other options. MajesticEli (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC) MajesticEli (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bridport. 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) 12:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bridport. 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) 19:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bridport. 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) 11:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bridport&oldid=1200354515"