Jump to content

Talk:Beverley

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

lion?

[edit]

since when does beverley have a lion...

Never, as far as I can tell. Moved to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Blisco 20:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BEVERLEY ACTUALLY DOES HAVE A LION! THEY KEEP IT NEAR THE MEMORIAL HALL HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO BEVERLEY

I live in beverley, there is no lion. 77.86.82.135 (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population

[edit]

I have reverted the recent change to the population in the infobox as the change was out of alignment with the text. Unfortunately I cannot locate a reference for either the 29,210 or 29,110 figure. Can anyone provide a reference for either of these figures? Keith D (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a direct link to the 29,110 figure. Unfortunately the "town" boundaries of almost all market towns in England have not been redrawn since before local government reorganisation in the 1970s. Before this town boundaries were extended periodically to take account of new building but since town councils lost most of their functions to the new district authorities nobody has bothered to redraw the boundaries.

For this reason National Statistics prefers the urban area definition for comparative purposes - ie the contiguous built-up area where the gap between buildings does not exceed 50 metres. Otherwise most of the housing built in the past 30-plus years gets excluded because technically it is situated in adjacent parishes. Jameswilson (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Infobox change

[edit]

Note: - this has become a centralised discussion for changes on Market Weighton, Selby and Beverley - much easier to have a single place for discussion rather than separate places. Keith D (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why the infobox has been changed as according to WP:CITIES I think we should be using the original one. Can someone please explain how Beverley's use of settlement in preference to UK place fits in with the following - "All settlements of the United Kingdom (that are not coterminous with a local government district) are to use the Template:Infobox UK place, though some very rare exceptions exist. For those that are coterminous with a local government district (which are usually large cities / unitary districts or equivalent—such as Liverpool, Leicester, and Bristol), please use Template:Infobox settlement." Keith D (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per explained to you on your talk in regards to the arms and other information. WP:CITIES is just a project page, not a policy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the infobox as per WP:UKCITIES as there has been extensive discussion on the use of infoboxes in UK place articles there, see also the archives. Please discuss any changes required to WP:UKCITIES about using the settlement infobox there as there is a much wider audience than this article and it has impact on a UK wide basis. Keith D (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone your edit, because you've provided no reason as to why REMOVING information from an article is preferable, just to keep a mere infobox inline with the guideline opinion of an editor on a WikiProject which is not even policy. Especially as the only big different between the two is that the current one allows for more information, which is important to the article.- Yorkshirian (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is policy see Wikipedia:Consensus--Ahjet (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The project page clearly marks its specific useage as "project guideline". A guideline is not a policy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, consensus is a policy. Do you have it?--Ahjet (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be a newbie, so I'll take pity and kindly put you in the direction of Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines which explains to you the difference between the two. One is the law of Wikipedia (policy), one is merely advisery and is down to the editors choice, hense why Manchester for example has the same infobox which allows arms... a project guideline doesn't even have the status of a general guideline. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy I am emphasizing is that of consensusWikipedia:Consensus.You do not have consensus to use the infobox of your choice in this article. It's nothing to do with guidelines.--Ahjet (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I tried to restore the UK place infobox to re-display missing information OS Grid reference, Unitary authority and Parish, and also corrected UK parliament and retained Town Council website in Infobox. I cannot see any reasoning as to why the "Arms of Beverley Council" (which was abolished in 1996) is the "Official Logo of Beverley" as even the Beverley Town Council website only uses the "Beverley Crest" and not the full coat of arms. But within a minute it was changed back as apparently "it's a town"?!Dallan72 (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dallon, you seem to be ignorant on information pertaining to Beverley. In my hands right now I have a book on the history of the town which features the full achievement of arms on the cove, published in 2003, after 1996... the current website of Beverley Town Council also, clearly features the shield from it. Does that not say something... common sense should be kicking in right now. If you feel just the shield should be there instead of the full achiemevent, then that is a different story and if that is your problem removing the image completely is not on.
The arms of Beverley and other towns is as relevent as Manchester's arms, which is allowed in the article and has reached FA with the same infobox, so all this boring talk of the non policy WikiProjects is irrevelent. If the UK infobox is useless, as it seems it is, then people who seem to be obsessed with its use should make the changes to allow additional fields, including the arms of the towns, cities, etc. Until the infobox for cities like Manchester is changed to the inferior UK one too, then I don't see why this one should suffer. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus for use of infoboxes on UK settlements of all types was reached at WP:UKCITIES, see the archives for the discussion. Beverley may be a town but is not coterminous with a local government district and so should use the UK place infobox. The settlement box does not show the services or OS reference. I did request that discussion take place at WP:UKCITIES if a change is required in the guidelines and a new consensus reached before changing articles. Keith D (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like more work to use Infobox settlement rather than Infobox UK place as you don't get the maps with the location dot automatically generated and need to manually create a map for every single location. The Infobox UK place template does this all automatically if you provide the co-ordinates -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use UK place here. As already stated, UK place was developed with extensive discussion (several archive's worth!) - WP:UKCITIES merely reflects the various consensuses formed there. It was developed, I believe, to ensure consistency, neutrality and stability for all places and not omit or give greater weight to certain things (ie home nations over UK, the county system etc etc).
Infobox settlement is a great tool, and certainly has its place for the UK, but I think it should be avoided for all "sub-district" places as it is very unstable (there is no standard as to what should and should not be included), and open to all sorts of manipulation and points of contention.
In short, there is little to be gained by adding this infobox to a handpicked selection of articles. I would recommend a good faith revert. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked through this, I'm inclined to agree with Dallan that the crest doesn't verifiably pertain to Beverley proper. As one can't add a "fact" tag to images, I'm raising it for discussion here. This issue of displaying the crest seems to be the crux of the matter here. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Beverley CoA appears to be for the former borough & the Selby CoA appears to be for the district and not for the town. These do appear on the relevant pages, I would think that using them on the town page in incorrect. The Market Weighton logo appears to relate to the town council and may be suitable on the Market Weighton page with an appropriate FUR. I think that if the problem is just the crest then may be an addition to the infobox UK place of a crest field following the image may be a way forward. But the use of crests/logos which do not apply is a different matter as we should not be applying them to article to which they no not officially apply. Keith D (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definately not, I agree. Infact, the College of Arms tends only to bring legal action when arms have been misappropriated/misattributed rather than displayed. Due to the lack of citation, we ought to remove this asap. They can always be restored if someone has a fair rationale.
The above, combined with the rest of discussion and lack of reply from Yorkshirian inclines me to restore the original Infobox UK place. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jza84 can you clarify to what your first sentence "Definately not, I agree." refers? Keith D (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad. In response to "we should not be applying them [the COA] to article to which they no not officially apply", I should've said I agree, we definately should not [apply them to the wrong article]. Does that clarify? Sorry about that!!! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarification, I thought that it applied to that part but was unsure. Keith D (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed this message/reply, so I'll reprint it..

You seem to be ignorant on information pertaining to Beverley. In my hands right now I have a book on the history of the town which features the full achievement of arms on the cove, published in 2003, after 1996... the current website of Beverley Town Council also, clearly features the shield from it. Does that not say something... common sense should be kicking in right now. If you feel just the shield should be there instead of the full achiemevent, then that is a different story and if that is your problem removing the image completely is not on.
The arms of Beverley and other towns is as relevent as Manchester's arms, which is allowed in the article and has reached FA with the same infobox, so all this boring talk of the non policy WikiProjects is irrevelent. If the UK infobox is useless, as it seems it is, then people who seem to be obsessed with its use should make the changes to allow additional fields, including the arms of the towns, cities, etc. Until the infobox for cities like Manchester is changed to the inferior UK one too, then I don't see why this one should suffer. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that books on Beverley and the TOWN COUNCIL WEBSITE ITSELF (NOTE, NOT JUST DISTRICT FOR THE SLOW ONES) uses it means, it belongs in the article and is essential to it. No ifs, buts. The town council website uses a crest and so this article must too. You wanting to make the article look dull/boring or whatever doesn't come into consideration. Neither does farting on about some WikiProject which isn't even policy and clearly, as I have shown with Manchester, Kingston upon Hull, Sheffield, etc. Any article of a decent standard does not use the inadequet "UK Place" one, but infact "Infobox Settlement". I'm trying to remain civil, but the fact that you're being an anonyance, for the sake of being anoying hinders that greatly. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a compromise and added just the shield from the town website, instead of the full achievement, though I don't agree that it should only be the sheild as for those not completely ignorant about the town you can see the full achievements use in the town (on books, etc). In this new version the old women of Wikipedia cannot myther about it, because its the exact shield feature on the TOWN council website. I've also figure out why the OS thing wasn't showing up "it needed to have <no wiki>TA035399</no wiki> instead of just numbers, its fixed now. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to this "Compromise"; there was none. The issue in hand is the use of Template:Infobox settlement against the wishes of myself, KeithD, Dallan, WOSlinker and WP:UKCITIES. Your edit has placed three settlements out of line with the rest of England. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, would like to see Template:Infobox UK place restored,please.--Ahjet (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahjet's only edits are this articles talkpage, odd? Jza84 what do you mean out of line with the rest of England, you mean like what you've insisted on Manchester's article with "Infobox settlement"? You can't have it both ways. You seem to switch positions on each article, which is it to be? Its simple logic that, "Infobox settlement" goes on both this one and Manchester, or neither. You can't have it both ways just because you "like Manchester" and would prefer that Yorkshire's main town's articles look dull and drab.
The compromise edit was adding just the shield instead of the full achievement, as per another users comment above question about it (Dallan I think it was). Since the shield was featured on the TOWN councils official website. You have not replied to the message I made above and entered an actual discussion about the topic at hand, merely returned counting figure on old discussion. Wikipedia doesn't work on a voting poll basis, it works on discussion.
The "UK place" box lovers (even though both look EXACTLY the same, apart from the UK one lacks additional fields) could always fix their outdated and inadaquet infobox so that is has an option for including towns coats of arms, like every single other country on Wikipedia like Straubing, Clermont-Ferrand and every other. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yorkshirian, there are now 5 users wishing that UK place be restored (plus two more on WT:GM). Don't you think that is telling? Your contentions, which appear to be to keep fringe preferences, appears void, as Manchester has the distinction not only being a major city, but a metropolitan borough - a local government district. It is not a sub-district settlement and it's not about having it both ways. All local government districts should be using Infobox settlement. This is in WP:UKCITIES already.
Also, places in other countries have town coat of arms because that's what they are, they belong to the town. In the UK, arms are not granted to territories but people and organisations. There is a difference. If you wanted a crest field in UK place then why not suggest that at the template talk page instead of being combattative and having this "me VS them" ("their inadequate infobox") mentality. Infact, had you done your research (or asked for feedback) you would've learned that it is possible to have a skyline and a crest at the same time; you could've just asked, I'd have been happy to help. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK then if you know a way to change "UK place" template, so that a crest for towns can be used within it then that would be a better compromise. Also it would be useful to have other fields, such as who first settled it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I add my support to the call for the template used to be the UK place one?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! (8/1?) :)
To Yorkshirian, I'm afraid we'll have to wait until protection runs its course now. we'd have to agree between us all what is the right way forwards. However, the effect you desire is acheieved by adding:

|static_image= |static_image_caption= |static_image_2= |static_image_2_caption=

The first can be used for a skyline, the second for a crest. This field was added via a request by myself some time ago. UK place is far from inadequate, it's actually one of the strongest and (within its remit) most versitile and clever infoboxes on Wikipedia. As for the "Founded" field, that's one you'd have to take to the template talk page. Perhaps I wasn't trolling or vandalising afterall eh Yorkshirian? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the info and I apologise for the hostilities, but you could have told me that at the very start and avoided all of this pointless drama. I'll ask Stifle to unprotect this article if you like. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the Full syntax in the template documentation does not mention these fields though they are mentioned earlier in the page. Keith D (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good call and well spotted. I've updated the syntax documentation and examples accordingly (Selby is an example at Template:Infobox UK place/doc/England). Are there any other outstanding issues here? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

This page has been protected for 1 week due to edit warring. Please use this time to establish a consensus on the content of the page. If you agree on the page contents before the protection expires, you can request the page be unprotected at WP:RFPU. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Courtney Diaries

[edit]

These diaries provide a fascinating insight into the social life of Beverley in the mid to late 18th century. Almost like Jane Austin. See[1] and[2].--Harkey Lodger (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley Project - Local Web Site

[edit]

I would like to provide some content for the Beverley porject and also to reuest a link to a web site I manage that is 100% about Beverley. Running the risk of looking like a spammer but please my intentions are genuine - www.hu17.net (Hu17dotnet (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You are free to add to the page as long as the information supplied is in line with our policies and is sourced from reliable sources. Though I should also point you to the conflict of interest guidelines before you start. There are also links on the welcome message on your talk page that may be of use. I have my doubts about the external link but will let others have a say on that one. Keith D (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
www.hu17.net is a great site, so have no doubts Keith! It's all about Beverley and should be listed on the page! 157.203.254.3 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having met Paul (the guy behind www.hu17.net) he's very genuine and the iste is excellent. It serves Beverley far, far better than the site which the Hull Daily Mail maintains. Should definately be a link to the site! Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Beverley/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.
  1. Add inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates
  2. Investigate first image in gallery
  3. Population figure for built-up area - what is this? Should it be lower figure for parish as per what the article is about
  4. Needs expanding of some sections
Keith D 22:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Beverley. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beverley. 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) 06:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planned Expansion section seems to be campaign rhetoric

[edit]

Hi - I'm a resident of Beverley, idly browsing through. I noticed the section headed "Planned Expansion", and I feel it's a thinly-disguised insertion of campaigning rhetoric. A very long and hyperbolic quote from an obscure local campaigner, using lurid phrasing like "under attack" and "steamrollered".

I like my town and I don't want it to be spoilt by excessive or poorly-planned developments, but as a nation we have an urgent need to build more homes. This challenge isn't unique to Beverley, any more than climate change is. Not sure that it merits a section in the town's wikipedia article, but if there is to be a section then it should be more informative and balanced than the present text. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.32.239 (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've amended the article along the lines you suggest. Please view it to ensure it meets your request. Blurryman (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has been re-inserted - first by an IP and then by a newly registered user. I have reverted to Blurryman (talk · contribs) text and noted in the edit summary that the user should talk to talk page. Keith D (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beverley. 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) 06:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northumbrian and Viking period

[edit]

The last sentence in this section was:

"St Martin's chapel was also destroyed and was a place of pilgrimage for many, was removed during the Dissolution of the Monasteries."

It's unclear what is being said, partly because of the grammar. There was no citation for it, and I've tried to find information on line, but with no success. Bibliosporias (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bibliosporias: There is a mention here but not clear what they are saying. Keith D (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that -- but as you say, it doesn't clearly help. Aside from referring to a church, not a chapel, there's no talk of pilgrimage. Bibliosporias (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collage?

[edit]

Does this page need a collage like other articles and the anon who made this change failed to correct a caption of one photo mistaking for the minster and not adding the minster photo. DragonofBatley (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot see what the problem is with a collage in infobox. Keith D (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beverley&oldid=1241183734"