Jump to content

Talk:Sittingbourne

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

Please do not add promotional links to the external links article unless they add anything to the information in the article. Wikipedia is not a directory of links or an advertising portal. See Wikipedia:LINKS. Triwbe (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sittingbourne/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 The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*Move historical sections to ===sub headings=== within the History section, current MP is not historical
  • More information needed about the town today, the local government, industry and local tourist attractions
  • Photographs will improve an article
  • Reference any detail (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Kent/Citing sources
  • The historical section needs a complete re-write as it is full of grammatical and spelling errors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.27.229 (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 06:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sittingbourne. 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) 08:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sittingbourne. 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) 12:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garden village

[edit]

Please could someone add the Highsted Park planning application and the call-in by the Secretary of State.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Crookesmoor (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood the process. Please add in the Present day section...
In 2021 a garden village was proposed on the land between Sittingbourne, Teynham and Lynsted which would include 8,000 homes, community facilities, an orbital road to the Eurolink business park and a new junction 5a on the M2 motorway. Swale Borough Council officers had recommended refusal of two planning applications in November 2024 but the decisions were called in by Secretary of State Angela Rayner.[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crookesmoor (talk • contribs) 13:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you could elaborate on what it means "were due to refuse the proposals" and "called in for a public inquiry". Also, as this statement is worded, it's not clear if there is and/or was a resolution. Please advise. When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the {{Edit COI}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=y to |ans=n. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  10:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7mgxxj7gro
Updated above, thanks. Crookesmoor (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Note: Thank you for your edits. I am happy to add the first part. As for the Rayner call in, the BBC source does not include this update. Will add if you provide a supporting source. PK650 (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the second source is here [1] Crookesmoor (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The requesting editor's user page says Some of my contributions are to articles where I've been involved in the planning process.
Could we have some clarification on why it is suggested that the material above be added to this article? Info on planning applications would not seem, on the face of it, to be encyclopaedic info per se and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. If the material was encyclopaedic, the entire encyclopaedia could easily be full of nothing but material on rejected planning applications.
Personally I don't feel that individuals should be nominating material to be included in relation to local news stories that they were directly involved in. If no uninvolved person has suggested inclusion then the encyclopaedia can hardly be any the worse for the material continuing to not be included.
Furthermore, it seems to me to be rather concerning that, in an instance where a planning decision has been questioned, one of the parties involved in the matter should be trying to raise awareness of the ongoing situation by including it in Wikipedia. Axad12 (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a) this would be a very large development, much larger than many Kent villages and other development such as Kings Hill which have their own WP articles, so IMO this is sufficient notability to include as part of the longer article for the existing town;
b) the call-in of an application by the Secretary of State is rare and thus notable;
c) as the decision has been questioned it's in the public interest for it to be covered and not ignored (which would arguably help the promoter);
d) there is already awareness of the development from ongoing national and local media coverage. Crookesmoor (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my earlier comments, but would be interested to hear what other editors have to say. In the meantime it may assist if you were to clarify the extent of your own COI here?
Also I'd be grateful for clarification on the connection that you seem to be drawing between "public interest" and the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. As far as I can see that is a completely spurious line of argument as there is no connection.
Also "much larger than many Kent villages" isn't really saying very much given that many Kent villages are no more than a handful of houses, a village shop and a church.
I am also concerned that your response above would appear to suggest that you are trying to promote awareness of the ongoing situation in a way which is to the detriment of the promoter of the development - which is thus apparently to the advantage of the planning department to which you apparently have some degree of association. Wikipedia should not be being abused for such partisan motives, under the guise of your actions being claimed to be "in the public interest".
I'd suggest that at the very least there should be no addition to the present article until the Rayner intervention has been resolved one way or the other (although in saying that I reserve judgement on whether inclusion would be relevant at that time). Axad12 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Crookesmore, I'm not sure what led you to recently go ahead and make the edit you requested above given that there was clearly no consensus in favour of inclusion. I have reverted the relevant edits and will now close down this edit request for the reason stated above. Axad12 (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9njklv5d8o
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sittingbourne&oldid=1263183499"