Talk:Minster-in-Thanet

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kent Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Kent tasks:

Here are some Kent related tasks you can do:

Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category.
Edit the Top and High importance articles.
Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury
Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council
NPOV: K College
Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles
Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent
Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society
Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles

Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion.

Changes/deletion of content

I have deleted some of the content because it was either non-notable or nonsense. A list:

"formerly Menstruary": not verifiable; however it has been called "Mynstre" and "Meustre": [1].
"roundabout junction of west Thanet": not sure what this is supposed to be.
"Minster-Monkton Micro-Tectonic Plate Boundary": appears to be nonsense; unable to verify.
"Minster Matters": not sure if it is notable; "becoming a Microstate like Vatican City": unlikely.
"situated in a deep valley": obviously incorrect.
landfill: not sure if this is actually planned; the source only has it in a list of sites being considered.
"Mud Flood": there have been floods, but a source is needed for the notability of this one; the source cited mentions that part of the village is susceptible to flooding but nothing about houses being destroyed.
"Homosexuality laws": not particularly relevant or notable; same laws as the rest of England.
"Minster Junior School and Paedophilia": maybe the incident should be mentioned, but the way it has been written is obviously incorrect and exaggerated: the death penalty was abolished in the 1960s (see Capital punishment in the United Kingdom).
St. Augustine of Canterbury: my mistake: that was relevant information. I have moved it to the "interesting facts" section, although it should probably be incorporated into the history section (more information is needed about the history before the monastic settlement).
Richard Culmer: apparently it is uncertain if Blue Dick is the same person: see Talk:Richard Culmer.
Eunice Scott Smith: unable to verify; unable to find information on the site cited as a source. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One I forgot to mention: the population of 359 was incorrect: it referred to a page number (Population of Kent 1801 to 1921 Victoria County History of Kent Vol. 3 - Page 359), not the population. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some vandalism I had missed; I fixed it in these edits: [2] --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location of first fatal car accident

I have added a {{dubious}} tag to this as although it is mentioned in the source, it is not listed at List of road accidents and I am unable to find more information about it as the details are not specific enough. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is not consistent with this news item which claims it was at the Crystal Palace in south-east London on 17 August 1896. Groomtech (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

WHen there is a dispute about an article's content, please discuss it at the talkpage, don't just battle it out in edit summaries. Thanks, El on ka 18:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

I see that there's some information in this article about a local pedophile. The source appears reasonably reliable,[3] but per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, we should really have multiple reliable sources before including that kind of information. Do such sources exist? If not, I'd recommend removing the information, since if the sources don't exist, it's probably not notable enough for Wikipedia. --El on ka 22:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to worry, its part of a series of IP-authored vandalism, quite amusingly done in the main, but palpable nonsense. I've reverted to what I hope is a sensible version. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong disagree with Richard. I think that some of what has been written on the article is not true, such as that Minster the musical crap, but the rest of it, about the pedophile etc is true, and easibly referenced. MarigoldPonies (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact everything User:MarigoldPonies has added back in is a repeat of this vandalism. I have left a warning of that users talk page. Richard Pinch (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. If you actually cared to check the history, you would see I have in fact been going through everything to remove all the vandalism. Please check what it is you're reverting next time. Anyway, I'm still not done. MarigoldPonies (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had already removed the vandalism, you have put some of it back in. I think the "music" section can stay in, but I have removed the disputed content, as better sources are needed (or at least the sources should be used properly). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 10:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the cottaging incident which I have moved into the interesting facts, rather than giving it a whole new section. MarigoldPonies (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I reverted contained egregious nonsense, which you had been responsible for adding. Adding in nonsense and taking it out again is not constructive. Richard Pinch (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er no, you reverted the valid adjustments I made. You have certainly not made a good impression on me Pinch, and I already consider you disruptive. MarigoldPonies (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed any nonsense, and other incorrect information caused by misunderstanding of the sources, and made a few minor edits (most of which I had already done, but which you reverted). If there is anything I removed which you think should be in the article, please mention it here. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I condone the changes, except for the removal of the pedophilia information. I think this surely is relevant, and a quick search on google returns plenty of news results. MarigoldPonies (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are reliable, and you cite them in the article, it can be mentioned, however it only needs a sentence or two (to avoid undue weight) and should not be included in the title of the section. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Police caution

I corrected this to conform to the source: Kent police not the "Minster government" issued the caution. But I dispute its notability per WP:NOT#NEWS. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debatable

In view of the ridiculous amount of misinformation added to this article in the past, I think it necessary to be unusually bold in deleting unsourced and implausible material. One example is

It was settled in 1937 by Minsterian refugees fleeing Nazi Germany and continues to flourish as international community with sisters from seven nations. The Priory has the care of the remains of St. Mildred's head that had been in the care of a church in Deventer in the Netherlands since the Reformation.

I would ask that it be carefully sourced before being put back. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the version from before the article was vandalised[4], and added a reference. It had been vandalised in this edit. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong title

Why is this place called Minster, Thanet? The civil parish, third tier of local government, quite clearly calls itself Minster-in-Thanet so why doesn't Wiki? It is in the Thanet District - the second tier, but not all the places within that district are in the ancient island. The article makes no mention of civil parish, either; and the website carries a great deal of info which would make this article less of a hotchpotch (including its history) Peter Shearan (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing this article

Grammatical changes: please kindly review what you have written and remove errors before saving. Thank you.
Advertising: This is an encyclopaedic article. Lists of types of shops can be useful, but some lists of named shop-chains can resemble advertising.--Storye book (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minster-in-Thanet. 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:

Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RwVjjOczW04J:www.thanetarch.co.uk/Virtual%2520Museum/2_Galleries/G8%2520Content/Virtual_Museum_Gallery_8.html+Minster+Thanet+land+reclamation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=safari with https://web.archive.org/web/20160304100645/http://www.thanetarch.co.uk/Virtual%20Museum/2_Galleries/G8%20Content/Virtual_Museum_Gallery_8.html on http://www.thanetarch.co.uk/Virtual%20Museum/2_Galleries/G8%20Content/Virtual_Museum_Gallery_8.html

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) 18:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Minster-in-Thanet. 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) 21:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]