Talk:Minster, Swale

Name

This article is entitled Minster-in-Sheppey, the lead paragraph refers only to Minster, where the Infobox is marked as Minster-on-Sea. Could we have either some consistency, or some explanation of the use of the different terms? Tafkam (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The correct name of the village is Minster. As there is also a Minster on the Isle of Thanet, the correct way to disambiguate them would be to name the articles Minster (Sheppey) and Minster (Thanet) with Minster, Kent created as a disambiguation page for the two villages. Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure it is a simple as that. I disagree that adding another system would be helpful. Certainly, kids I taught always called it Minster but it is Minster on the OS map as is the one in Thanet. Judith Glover in her book- uses Minster in Sheppey- and gives its name in 1100 as Sexburgamynster.

I did not know the name of 'Minster on Sea' but this is the name of parish council.

Minster on Sea request for a sign with details of village

Sheppey online uses Minster.

Postally, Minster-- is always Minster,Sheerness.

However even county wide organistion include KFCA bend the address to Minster-on-sea, Sheerness.

The primary school calls itself [www.minster-sheppey.kent.sch.uk Minster in Sheppey].

And Swale tourism uses Minster and Minster in Sheppey on the same web page.

There is also Minster-on-Sea page.

ClemRutter (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that there is considerable variation, but as no-one local has suggested any other option, I'm going to suggest moving this page to Minster, Swale as per WP:NC:CITY and in line with the current Minster, Thanet article. I'll also place a disambiguation page at Minster, Kent as suggested by Mjroots. I'd also suggest incorporating some of ClemRutter's information with the article itself. Any objections? Tafkam (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now made this move. Tafkam (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it more than perverse to call this Minster, Swale. Historically speaking, it was Minster-in-Sheppey from the 7th century as you can see here; and here. Swale is a second tier of local government: its name was chosen because the Island was not large enough to be on a par with the other District Councils in Kent, so Sittingbourne had to be tacked on to it: the only connecting feature was The Swale. Incidentally, the article gives no reason why the title has Swale in it! Third-tier local government, ie the parish councils - of which Minster is - should be shown as such. If you then look for the name of this parish, it is Minster-on-Sea Parish Council - see here, which is a relatively recent change, I believe. To say that, by calling it Minster, Swale equates it with Minster-in-Thanet ignores the fact that the area has always been known as Thanet long before 1974. Again it calls itself quite clearly Minster-in-Thanet for that reason, not because it now happens to be in the Thanet District. That again is larger than the original island.

Please can we get it right? Peter Shearan (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter of getting it right in terms of what people want the place to be called. The problem arises because there is no consistent name. As you rightly say, it has been known both as Minster-in-Sheppey and Minster-on-Sea by different groups - and the current Ordnance Survey gazetteer lists it as merely Minster. The comparison made to the Minster, Thanet article is related to the mention of the WP:NC:CITY guidelines. The Wikipedia guidelines there clearly state that where two towns in the same county share a name, then they should be disambiguated by adding the name of the local authority district. In this case, that makes the correct name of this article, Minster, Swale. Until such time as an agreed definitive name for the town can be shown to be either of the -in-Sheppey, or -on-Sea form, I can't see how else it can be rightly disambiguated. Tafkam (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter is absolutely right. The fact that Sheppey is an island- blows the WP:NC:CITY guidelines out of the water. (Coincidently: the examples given are for Metropolitan boroughs- not county districts, which weakens the case and for clearly understood geographical areas- former Boroughs in their own right. ). While there is a difficulty in achieving consistency, naming it after a strip of sea just obfuscates. The term Swale itself presents numerous difficulties and really needs to be avoided, the suggestion of Minster, Swale- suggests it is a village near Brompton-on-Swale, or Myton-on-Swale. Still ranting, does not move this debate forward so here is a precedent we can use to solve this, taken from the geographic coordinates debate- and adapted. The name should be that of the earliest known settlement that is still in common use. This means Minster-in- Sheppey, it predates Minster on Sea and is still in common use as the name of the parish council. That almost solves the Local government division requirement. ClemRutter (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I must stress that I am not trying to argue that the Swale disambiguation is the most desirable choice for everyone. Merely that it meets the guidelines set out at WP:NC:CITY. The consideration that Sheppey is an island is academic, as is the fact that the examples given at the guidelines are metropolitan boroughs.

I am not diametrically opposed to a move to another article namespace, if it can be shown to be agreed as the most appropriate. The original move was in order to tidy up a bad article which used all three titles with no explanation. If there is support for Minster-in-Sheppey as the official name, then I would suggest making the move supported with evidence, and adjusting the toponymy section of the article accordingly. Tafkam (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming again

At the risk of stirring up a can of worms, I must admit I was surprised to find this article under this name. Frankly this is an example of blind adherence to WP:NC:CITY creating a nonsense - WP:COMMONNAME should predominate. Ultimately - WP:IAR. It's interesting that User:Tafkam is from Sussex, whereas the Kent mob are the ones protesting about using Swale. I'd agree, because there are two disambiguations already in common use. Sure, locals may refer to it as simply Minster - but local abbreviations are common. In Warwickshire Stratford-upon-Avon becomes just "Stratford" and in the Potteries Newcastle-under-Lyme is just "Newcastle" - but they're not very helpful for a more global audience, you need some kind of disambiguation that makes sense to outsiders. I can live with Minster-in-Sheppey but am 60:40 in favour of defining the article as being about the civil parish and so it becomes Minster-on-Sea as the unarguable name for that specific definition. Unarguable is always good! Just anything but the current name... Le Deluge (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Minster, Swale. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070218070352/http://www.eisite.co.uk:80/webs/2235MINS/ to http://www.eisite.co.uk/webs/2235MINS/

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)