Jump to content

Talk:Lustleigh

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

This article reads like a tourist brochure instead of an encyclopedia article. I'll look into researching over the next couple of days for a rewrite. ArglebargleIV 16:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heavily edited this article to put it into WP style. The writer is clearly a bell addict so that had to be cut down the most - Adrian Pingstone 21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces

[edit]

Wikipedia is not the place to add opinion or editorial about any service, person or group. This is an encyclopaedia, and as such should be based around verifiable facts. Whether or not you like a given thing, this is not the place to talk about it. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 15:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exeter cricket campers

[edit]

I have just removed the following from the article:

Since the early 1970s, a group of campers, originally associated with the visiting Exeter University Staff Cricket Team known as "the Erratics", has spent two to three weeks in the village annually, usually in July. The campers are now into their third generation, and the association with cricket is now more tenuous, and they are known for their ingenious devices using intermediate technology: showers rigged up in trees, dynamo-powered music systems and elaborate constructions made from fallen tree branches. Originally camping in the field between the cricket field and the main road into the village, they are now based on the other side of that road, further from public view.

I have several issues to be addressed here, firstly whether this is encyclopaedic at all, or whether this one group would be getting undue weight. Secondly, it would require citations as per WP:V and WP:CITE, as otherwise we cannot verify the statement. Lastly, if these things exist, would this be better at Exeter University than here? Any thoughts? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 06:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inserted from User talk:Owain.davies for consistency of flow

Is it encyclopaedic? I suppose it depends on the judgement of when something turns from "occurrence" to "tradition". One could argue that in a village of just 600-700 people, the annual influx of a group of up to 30 people for a couple of weeks is a significant event, if it has happened annually for over 35 years (I love the way the May Queen title holder list is kept bang up to date - another example of an annual event!) You refer to "this one group" but I wonder if there is any other comparable temporary migrant group, of campers or otherwise, who has had comparable impact on the village - socially or economically; I'd be surprised if there was. They are now an established, if temporary, part of the Lustleigh scenery. Their tents even used to appear on the google maps pictures of the village! And I don't think there's a recognised campsite for "tourists" within 3 miles of the village - at least that's the nearest I can find from a bit of basic search engine-based research about the place - and that's something else that makes their persistent presence in the village rather noteworthy.
As for verifiability, I suppose any record of their impact has to appear somewhere first, and then be cited in future articles. Is it not possible, or acceptable, for Wikipedia to be the first such place? Could it be verified by a word with the staff of the dairy, or of the Cleave?
I think that although the annual visit of the staff cricket club of Exeter University was the impetus to this "tradition", the University itself is not sufficiently connected with the continuing tradition in Lustleigh to be the right place for this paragraph. That said, a note on the camping exploits would be an excellent sideline to explore in a wikipedia article on the Erratics Cricket Club, who have been going for over 75 years and truly deserve a page of their own - alas, I am not the person to write it! Perhaps until such a page exists, a redacted version of my text would be acceptable?
(Hanoidan (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Hanoidan,
thanks very much for your note, and it's good to see you engaging about this. I'm afraid that Wikipedia has very specific rules about information being verifable, and i know this is one of the hardest rules for many new editors to get their head around. In a nutshell, the rule is "it is not what is true, but what can be proved to be true" - you can see this if you read WP:V. And proof can only come from reliable secondary sources. In this instance primary sources (i.e. something you know, or asking someone in the street) are not acceptable, and that contravenes the rules of no original research.
I appreciate that these rules can be frustrating and getting good, reliable sources is one of the most difficult skills, even for experienced editors. However, Wikipedia already has a negative reputation in some areas regarding its reliability (in many instances quite unfairly as cited cases in the media were quite often only live for a few minutes) and the main tool we have to combat this is to ensure that everything we add can be backed up by an external source.
The cricket club would seem to be a candidate for an article, but again this requires citations, but these may be easily findable amongst items such as student media (i presume Exeter University has a student paper?).
I hope that all makes sense to you, but if you have any further questions, please let me know
Regards, OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lustleigh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lustleigh. 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) 04:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lustleigh&oldid=1203103650"