Talk:Harbledown

Untitled

I added the 'etymology' section. Is there any better evidence to support the 'hobble down' origin of Harbledown? Will add an Upper Harbledown section.

contiguous with the city, although still a separate village

It can't be both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories

(note conversation moved from User talk:Canterbury Tail.)

I suggest you need to learn the purpose of categories and I am reinstating the cricket ones at Harbledown. Do NOT remove them again. Categories are used by our readers for navigation purposes and it is the need for navigation to an article that determines whether the category is needed in that article, not the other way around. Do not dismiss the information about early cricket as "trivia". It is not. It is historical material that is sourced and has long been included in other articles. I also suggest you read WP:OWN because your attitude clearly infers that you consider yourself to be the "owner" of the Harbledown article. You say that "Harbledown doesn't even have somewhere to play cricket". So what? It did in 1640 and that's what counts.

Finally, you have cited WP:CATDEF and have obviously not understood or even read it. It opens: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories". The information about early, indeed historic, cricket at Harbledown is verified to two sources which are both widely used in this project and it is as plain as day why, on the basis of that information, Harbledown is relevant to Category:English cricket in the 14th to 17th centuries in temporal terms and to Category:Cricket in Kent re location. Therefore, the addition of the two categories to that article (complying with similar usage in numerous other articles) is in accordance with WP:CATDEF.

If I have to restore those categories again, I will report you to WP:ANI. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I am very aware of the use of categories in the project and how they are used to navigate readers. It is my belief in this situation that since cricket is barely included in the article that the topic of cricket is in no way defining in the article subject. Cricket is mentioned once in the article, in a single line, so I don't see how it's justified that those categories are somehow defining of the Harbledown article or are actually useful to the reader. The article is not about cricket. As it stands on the subject of cricket in the article basically boils down to, some people in Harbledown with some authority in some areas (and Harbledown wasn't entirely puritan being split with churches) didn't like cricket and said so. No mention of how this impacted the sport, or how this was somehow defining to the cultural and historical view of Harbledown, just the puritans decided it was profane. I have no qualms with the fact it happened, it's very well sourced, just that this isn't a major thing in the history of Harbledown. Noticed I never removed the content, which is as you mention referenced, just the categories. Per WP:BRD (which I'm aware is not policy) you made the edit boldly and I partially reverted so now we go to discussion rather than onto edit warring. If you wish to take it to ANI then that is your right. Not sure how you think I believe I'm the owner of the article, no one is an article owner on Wikipedia we're all responsible and equally obligated and able to edit, that's a rather heavy handed way to respond to someone who simply disagrees with part of your edit.

I must ask if you believe Harbledown is to be included in these categories why is Canterbury, an extremely important city for cricket, now included in them? Canterbury Tail talk 17:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Your problem here is misinterpretation and overuse of the word "defining". The key point in CATDEF is "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories". The incident at Harbledown in 1640 is one of the dozen or so earliest known references to cricket and therefore, as Professor Underdown has outlined in his work, Harbledown and similar places like Horsted Keynes, Chevening and Cranbrook have high importance in sporting history generally and in that of cricket in particular. You've agreed that the information is verifiable (and there are other sources which also verify it) and, given that the reference is about cricket in Kent in the 17th century, it is clear from that verifiable information why it has been placed in each of the two relevant categories. We in CRIC have a category about events in the period from c.1301 through to 1700 and in that category we include articles which contain information about cricket during that early period from which references are few and far between. What we know about Harbledown is minimal, only that some Puritans objected to someone in the village playing cricket, but it is historically significant because it confirms that cricket was being played in Kent at that time (as do other 17th century references re cricket in Kent, Surrey and Sussex). If we are going to inform our readers that there is piece of information about early cricket in Harbledown, we include the information in the Harbledown article and we add Harbledown to the relevant category and template so that the reader who is interested in early cricket can navigate to the article. The same scenario would apply if someone discovered that Isaac Newton once conducted experiments in Harbledown and then the article would be added to science categories.

Canterbury per se is not included in the Cricket in Kent category because a specific place in the city, St Lawrence Ground, is in Category:Cricket grounds in Kent which is a child of Cricket in Kent. If we knew of a specific venue in Harbledown, the article about that would hold the 1640 incident and would be in Cricket in Kent. We don't have anything more specific than Harbledown so that is the article we have to use and it is to that article that the temporal and location categories must lead the reader. The same thing happens throughout Wikipedia and is done by all projects. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)