Talk:Keswick, Cumbria/Archive 1

Photo view over Keswick
I think this is a nice photo by User:Mick Knapton.

Keswick and Derwent Water seen from Latrigg summitt.

It's only on the Latrigg article at the moment. Put it on here? Alternatively I took and put it on wikitravel.org (similar but in the summer time) -- Nojer2 15:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Population
Is the population 4,281, or about 5,000? Both figures are cited in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clear air turbulence (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

How to pronounce Keswick
Can someone state how Keswick is pronounced. I am from England but have lived in Canada a long time. I wa surprised to read this in the article on Keswick, Ontario
 * 'Unlike Keswick in England, it is locally pronounced as "Kez-wick".'

I would have expected Keswick UK to be said in exactly the same way. User:Brenont 03:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * hi, having lived in Keswick for much of my life i can say that you pronounce it (kes (as in the name of the 70's film) -wick (as in candle wick)) as simple as that. hope that helps John joskins 08:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you pronounced the 'w'? Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

some people pronounce the 'w' mainly new comers and Americans but traditional cumbrian locals do not. John joskins 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * it is pronouced kes-ick,not kes-wick,the w is silent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.57.188 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

File:Keswick, Cumbria Panorama 1 - June 2009.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Keswick, Cumbria Panorama 1 - June 2009.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 21, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-09-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 16:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

CCHT external link
This link was added to the article after discussion on the WP Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See: WP:RSN exercise. No information from the CCHT link has been put into the body of the article in the form of citations because it has not yet been verified for 100% accuracy by the Victoria County History project for Cumbria. (This will take some years to do). Laplacemat (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added some extra info to the article. I have used Denman's pages in a few places, if only to relieve the monotony of quoting Bott all the time. Mindful of your caution I have cross checked the Denman citations, and the only one I don't think I can verify from other sources is 14b ("by 1852 the number of tourists visiting Keswick during each season was estimated at between 12,000 and 15,000") and if you feel strongly about it there is no reason why we can't lose this statement and reword on similar, though less specific, lines from Bott or elsewhere. Indeed, if you wish I can re-attribute all the stuff presently cited to Denman, though I'd rather not.  Tim riley  talk    15:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On further reflection I have replaced all the CCHT refs with alternative sources, redrawing where necessary.  Tim riley  talk    08:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for adhering to the policy on CCHT info. It is a bore, but I suppose that the content is not a "reliable source" until published (by the VCH). Also, congratulations on your splendid Keswick article (you wouldn't like to contribute to the "History of Cumbria" one,would you?!)Laplacemat (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Such kind remarks – thank you! I am, in truth, sketchy about the history of Cumbria in general; I homed in on Keswick because it's my family's country home. I'd be flying false colours if I pretended to know much about the rest of Cumbria. Happy to do any digging you want in the Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society etc if wanted. I have access both in Keswick library and the British Library, near which I live when at home in London. Please don't hesitate to ask.  Tim riley  talk    21:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"With" constructions
There are a few of these that might, IMHO, be better caste:
 * "In the event it appears that the town escaped such attacks, with Scottish raiders finding richer and more accessible targets at Carlisle and the fertile Eden Valley, well to the north of Keswick." How about "...as Scottish raiders found richer..."
 * "...with only the Cumberland Pencil Museum remaining at the old site." How about "...and only the Cumberland Pencil Museum  remained at the old site".
 * "...rising to the largest difference with the 75–84-year-old bracket, containing 9.6 per cent of Keswick's population compared with a national average of 5.5." How about "...which contains 9.6 per cent..."
 * "The wettest months fall at the end of the year, with the peak average of 189.3 mm falling in October." Would this be better as "The wettest months fall at the end of the year, and the peak average of 189.3 mm falls in October."
 * "Keswick's history throughout the 20th century was one of increasing reliance on tourism, with the pencil industry as the second largest source of employment." How about "Keswick's history throughout the 20th century was one of increasing reliance on tourism, and the pencil industry became the second largest source of employment." Graham Colm (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For my part I don't object to any of the suggested rewordings, though in truth I'm not sure they're an improvement. Happy to go with the consensus on this.  Tim riley  talk    10:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I share Graham's doubts about these uses of "with", but am dubious about his suggested solutions. My preferred options:
 * No 1: simply delete "with"
 * No 2: ditto
 * No 3: Recast the sentence: "The percentage of Keswick's population aged 45 and upwards is above the national average, the largest difference being within   the 75–84-year-old bracket, which contains 9.6 per cent of Keswick's population compared with a national average of 5.5".
 * No 4: Delete "with"
 * No 5: Replace "with the pencil industry" with "the pencil industry being"

, please comment. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy to sign up to those. Will change unless anyone objects in the next day or so.   Tim riley  talk    13:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Now done. (Brian, are you a classicist? I seem to hear echoes of the ablative absolute in many of your constructions, above.)

FAC considered harmful
Removing a good ref as primary because an article is up for FAC.

Where the hell does that come from? We do not, and have never had, any policy against the use of primary sources. We have policies against not relying on primary sources, but that is a different matter.

I take no part in GA or FA - simply because every GA I've been involved in has led to situations like this, where articles suffer because of the review itself. Either when unfamiliar editors are attracted to a technical article and then hatchet it because they have no comprehension of the subject or, like this, where invented policies are cited to make unconstructive changes.

I wish this article well and I'm sure that it will make FA - however that's still no reason to make what is still an unconstructive edit just to address a non-existent requirement. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Point taken, and I'll reformat your ref to the article style and restore it. Best wishes.  Tim riley  talk    20:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)