Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Bentworth: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Nev1 (talk | contribs)
56,354 edits
→Demography section: new section
GA nom
Line 41: Line 41:
{{Findsourcesnotice}}
{{Findsourcesnotice}}


{{GA nominee|15:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)|nominator=♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#000">Dr. Blofeld</span>]]|page=4|subtopic=Geography|status=|note=}}
{{subst:GAN|geography-places <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ukiws|Ukiws]] ([[User talk:Ukiws|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ukiws|contribs]]) 18:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Move? ==
== Move? ==

Revision as of 15:38, 15 February 2012

Former good article nomineeBentworth was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 8, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
June 24, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
July 14, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
October 12, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
November 17, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Findsourcesnotice

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. harej 02:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bentworth, Hampshire → Bentworth —

  • There is no other villages or articles with the name 'Bentworth' apart from a disambiguation page in which I have moved myself. To add more confusion, there is a disambiguation page redirect named Bentworth in which can be deleted to make way in moving Bentworth, Hampshire to Bentworth. Jaguar (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved Bentworth (disambiguation) back to Bentworth and found another meaning for the name Bentworth. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move per nom. The village is the only thing just called "Bentworth" for which we have an article, hence no need to disambiguate. Per WP:PTM, it's debatable whether we need a dab page at all. PC78 (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Bentworth School District has as much claim to the search string "Bentworth" as our Hampshire village. There are various Bentworth results for Pennsylvania Bentworth Pennsylvania Keep things as they are. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since it is not established that a primary topic exists. A village with a population of 550 is a very weak claim for the primary topic when the school district serves a much larger population. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Bentworth is the only actual thing called Bentworth. Although the school district in Pennsylvania shares the same name, they are not relevant. However, the Hampshire village does have a stronger point than the Bentworth School District because the village has much more popularity, importance and more search results than the school district. If it does get renamed, it should never get confused with the school district in Pennsylvania. Jaguar (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If this page is moved and hatnote links are created to the other two uses of "Bentworth", then readers seeking the other two uses will be no worse off than when going through a dab page (one click away), while those seeking this subject will be better off. Because there are only 2 or 3 uses of this term, I see no downside to this move, despite primary topic being in question. When there are only 2 or even 3 entries, whether the topic is actually primary is not as important as when there are more entries. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Oppose Per Peter James since the school district is unrelated to this village I now agree with Vegaswikian that primary topic has not been established. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Support. I presume the school district is named after the town and practically anyone who knows of the school district knows of the town, and so would not be surprised to find the article of the town when searching for "Bentworth", and is highly unlikely to search for just "Bentworth" when looking for the school district. Therefore, the town, no matter how small, appears to be the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRECISION, there is no reason to disambiguate this town because of its size. The other pages linked from the dab are actually not called "Bentworth"; but keep them in the dab per WP:PTM. jonkerz♠
  • Support this is the only article just called "Bentworth", others would still appear in the search box (and a hatnote in the article) with full names, if appropriate. Peter E. James (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is only one article named Bentworth. The American school district can be dealt with quite adequately by a hatnote. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as per Jaguar. Jonchapple (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1942

1942 is not 70 years ago. I think your picture is copyright, can you remove it? Victuallers (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bentworth revisions

Jaguar's revision: Feb 2011 Ukiws's revision: Feb 2012

Have a look. Jaguar (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article's current layout is somewhat unconventional, especially when compared to high-quality articles on settlements and WP:UKTOWNS which has a recommended structure. For instance I'm curious why there's a section on St Mary's Church before Bentworth's history is discussed; I would have thought doing it the other way round may have provided some context and that the history is more important because it relates to the settlement as a whole rather than a single building. The lead is supposed to summarise the article, and I wonder if Bentworth's elevation above sea level is really so important as to belong there.
I'm also concerned that there are problems with the article's sourcing. In this version of the article reference #50 (David Charles Douglas (1940). William the Conqueror: the Norman impact upon England. pp. 2.) doesn't mention Bentworth at all, while 27 to 31 are links to maps which don't seem to support the statements they're meant to. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ukiws, it's clear a lot of time and effort has been invested in this article but I don't think it's ready to be assessed as a Good Article yet, particularly because of the referencing issue. I'd recommend removing the nomination. Not that it can't get there eventually, but the article still needs a fair bit of work. Moving forward, is there any chance you could explain why you think the article's current layout is preferable to that suggested at WP:UKTOWNS? The latter is a guideline rather than written in stone, but has been adopted by many successful articles such as Worsley, Sale, Greater Manchester, and Ashton-under-Lyne. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree; I stored those two revisions there just in case anything went wrong. Ukiws' currennt revision definately has more local knowledge and we would like to keep that, but the other version has an easier layout and it is more likely to pass another GAN. If Ukiws wants to, I can copy edit the article again soon so it has a better chance to pass a GAR. I'll also take a look at the sources, thanks for pointing that one out. :-D Jaguar (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demography section

I noticed the article has historic populations for 1789 and 1861. The source given for 1861 mentions the population in 1801 and 1831, but perhaps I'm missing 1861. That said, the 1801 and 1831 data tallies with this table at Vision of Britain. Using that table I'm proposing adding the following to the article:

Population growth in Bentworth since 1801
Year 1801 1811 1821 1831 1841 1851 1881 1891 1901 1911 1921 1931 1951 1961 2001
Population 425 406 548 592 609 610 558 604 571 586 522 570 614 596 466
% change – −4.5 +35.0 +8.0 +2.9 +0.2 −8.5 +8.2 −5.5 +2.6 −10.9 +9.2 +7.7 −2.9 −21.8
Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk

The downside is, it doesn't differentiate between Bentworth village, Burkham, Wivelrod, Thedden, Holt End, Ashley, and elsewhere but I think the historic population change is still of interest. Also I can't make out if there's a consistent format for the references, is there one? Nev1 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F477017976