Jump to content

Talk:Selby

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

The existing structure of the Selby page has been with us since 2004 and wasn't so bad in its day but the quality of other geographical wiki pages has improved by leaps and bounds since then, leaving Selby's looking a little tired.

One consequence of this is that there seems to be a tit-for-tat battle raging over external links. Wikipedia is not a link farm and therefore it is quite right to remove links that are not directly referenced in the main article. So adding sites to "external links" purely because they happen to be located in Selby (e.g. school websites etc) isn't really on unless the main article has relied on some information contained within that website.

Personally, I'm all in favour of including the "Alternative guide to Selby" link, not least for its wry look at Selby's rather tatty image of recent years, which can be contrasted with the developments which are rapidly transforming the area. I think this aspect of it can be worked into the "Modern Selby" section of the article. People who want other links to be incorporated should look at similar ways to make them relevant to the main article. --Archstanton 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure (2004)

[edit]

Good to see so much new material on Selby. Article could do with restructuring, in my opinion, with perhaps a slight trim of the useful and informative (but slightly waffly) mining material. Hence why I felt the need to start a talk page to try to achieve some kind of consensus on this.--TylerD 15:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could do with material on the future of Selby, plans for regeneration etc, as well as recent developments in nightlife etc. Also suggest that it would be worth mentioning the Cambleforth murders, as these had a major impact on the town and made national headlines during the manhunt. Obviously details need to be kept to the bare minimum for legal reasons as court proceedings are still active.--TylerD 15:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment added about the Selby constituency. 62.252.224.17 08:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page could do with a complete revamp to be honest, with a contents bar and multiple sections plus relevant links. Will also add a link to the Mark Hobson case, as it was the biggest news story to affect Selby in years. --Tyler 21:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Spamming

[edit]

We seem to have been plagued recently by people adding links to non-notable sites operated by themselves. This is regarded as spamming on Wikipedia. See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_not_be_linked_to for more details. Thanks. --Archstanton 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Selby News link classed as spamming? Just wanting a second opinion, thats all. --Tom 20:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, links to notable established sites with a bona fide connection to the article are generally acceptable, especially if they are quoted in the article text. What are not considered acceptable are personal sites which have been added by their owner or their associates, especially when they have hardly any content and consist mostly of lists of links to other sites or adverts. The ones that were removed were of this nature. People do this to boost their Google ranking and use Wikipedia's prestige to make their site seem more important than it is. But Wikipedia is not a "link farm" and this is becoming a growing problem. --Archstanton 08:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Industry and economy

[edit]

Anyone fancy having a bash at updating and expanding this section? There's a lot of development work going on at the riverside, Three Lakes and Barlby/Osgodby and the new science park being built should encourage an influx of professionals. Maybe move the Selby by-pass bit to this section too? --Archstanton 17:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about someone having a go at chronicling the history of Cochranes Shipbuilding? There's nothing on the web at all and it was significant part of the lives of Selebians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.123.124.102 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would put a short summary in this article then expand on it in its own article if there is sufficient material available. Keith D (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hobson Murders

[edit]

Does this deserve a place in this article? It seems only vaguley connected with Selby (could equally go in the Strensall or York articles surely?) and hardly counts as information on the history of the town. --Jmptdc 11:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does. Hobson had direct links with Selby (he grew up in Selby, was educated in Selby, lived most of his adult life in Selby, worked in Selby in numerous occupations (up until losing his last job, after which he claimed his benefits in Selby, had previous convictions for violence in Selby, his ex-partner and her sister (the first two victims) were from Selby, Camblesforth (scene of the first two murders) is part of the District of Selby, it was the talk of the town during the murder hunt and was the most significant news story to affect the area in years. It's hard to see how it could not be linked to Selby. Also, the role of Wikipedia isn't simply to produce rosy tourist guide potted histories of towns, anything that has some kind of connection should be included, warts and all --Tyler 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drax protests

[edit]

I propose that we add something about the recent highly-publicised (and failed) attempt to "shut down" nearby Drax power station (the camp was adjacent to Barlow Nsture Reserve, inside the Selby district) and its aftermath. With this being the third "news event" type of entry into the article, it may be time to reorganise this section. --Archstanton 14:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Development section looks really good, maybe it would be an idea to combine the floods, rail crash, Hobson and Drax stories into some kind of "Selby in the news" or "recent history" or whatever section. --TheCenturion 17:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Development

[edit]

I agree that the article would benefit from a development section, the part about the bypass looks very out of place. It also seems strange to have an entire section about the Town Hall - its not very significant and could maybe be rolled into some section about entertainment?

I have also made some slight amendments to some of the existing text. I have corrected some grammatical errors in the part about the Abbey and reworded the first paragraph surrounding the industry.

Let us know what you people think? Jedimasterdurex 21:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, I like the new development section. Have added a couple of links to the ESS within the body text. --TheCenturion 09:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, its my first addition to the site of any significance so nice to see someone thinks its ok. Good work on the article, looks much better than it did a few months ago. I was tempted to trim the Town Hall part myself but didnt want to offend people - it was a bit daft! Jedimasterdurex 22:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sport section

[edit]

Do we even need this section? Selby is a very small town and, with the greatest of respect to all involved, is not especially noted for its sporting achievements. The existence of such a section also seems to encourage amateur clubs and municipal publicity officers to treat the page as a repository for parish-pump PR material. --TheCenturion 13:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganisation

[edit]

This is a fairly poorly structured article - the various sections (some of them largely superfluous as noted above) seem all to be bolted together, and the facts and figures scattered throughout the text don't seem to be bound together. A case of too many cooks and no chef to guide them? I'm new to Wikipedia but I'd like to have a proper go at the article - doesn't seem particularly active here, so I'll just assume that there are no particular toes that I'm going to step on. If anyone has any comments (not echoed above), then please let me know. Sleepylee 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You go ahead, I'll keep an eye out and see if I have any suggestions as you go. Mdcollins1984 23:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:UKCITIES for guidance on settlement article structuring. Jza84 02:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't know if the person above had a go at cleaning up this article but it sure looks like it needs it. Having had a quick look at the guidelines above, it seems someone has followed them to the letter which does not seem appropriate for the Selby article. The guidelines say ""Depending on how much can be written, it may be best to merge" which might be an idea for this article as it seems to contain a lot of waffle amongst the information (such as in the transport section). Maybe its my opinion but there are too many sections considering the amount of actual information hence it could do with some tidying up.

I put a few quick touches in (i.e. referring to the bypass as the bypass rather than the "new bypass" simply because it is no longer new and also removing Goole from the Train crash references since it is never referenced as the Goole train crash) but I suggest someone with the time and know-how takes a good look at this. Thanks Jedimasterdurex 11:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be against any form of merge - its a town and should have its own article. It just needs cleaning up and referencing by someone who knows about the town. Keith D 13:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood what I have meant... I dont mean get rid of Selby as an article! By merge I mean some of the sections contained within the article. At the moment it looks like every sentence is divided by a heading. Cheers Jedimasterdurex 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox change

[edit]

I removed the change to {{Infobox settlement}} from {{Infobox UK place}} which took place without discussion and was subsequently reverted. Please discuss the changes to infobox before making a change to gain consensus. Looks like centralised discussion is currently at Talk:Beverley. Keith D (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What might this mean?

[edit]

The current Greenpeace craft bearing the name Rainbow Warrior was built in Selby in 1957.[17] Although much of the infrastructure of each remain both in and around Selby, both industries have long since been defunct. This makes no sense. Even reading with a bit more context it makes little sense (which "each" is referred to?). Any chance of someone reworking this? Tonywalton Talk 23:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digging back through the history, the Greenpeace sentence was an insert and the "each" referred to the shipbuilding and coal mining industries. It appears that the coal mining bit has got lost from this paragraph at some stage. Keith D (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have relocated this part later in the section and changed "each" to shipbuilding and coal mining industries. Hope that makes it clearer. Keith D (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Selby Bank

[edit]

This appeared in the York Press in February 2011: [1]. Does anyone have any more information about The Selby Bank, that could be added to the History section of this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Selby. 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Selby/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. Additional references required using one of the {{Cite}} templates
  2. History details needs expansion
  3. Restructure - some subsections of transport are not really transport related.  Done
  4. Pictures
  5. External links in text should be made into references or moved to External links section
Keith D 23:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 09:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 05:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Selby. 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) 00:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Selby&oldid=1212257145"