Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire/Archive 1

What does this mean?
The article lede contains the following:


 * Great Malvern on the eastern flank of the Malvern Hills and on the western perimeter of The Malverns is the main urban centre

What are The Malverns here?. Normally I'd read that name as short form for The Malvern Hills, but that reading renders the above sentence utterly meaningless (you clearly cannot be simultaneously on the eastern flank and the western perimeter of a range of hills). Can anybody explain what this sentence is trying, but IMHO failing, to say. -- Starbois (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten and expanded much of this article. Kudpung (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Survery

 * Strong oppose Great Malvern is a town in Malvern, all British towns have their own articles! If anything, Malvern, Worcestershire should be merged to Great Malvern, and the surrounding appropriate articles. Ideally Malvern, Worcestershire should only be a disambiguation page. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  13:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Malvern, Great Malvern, the Malvern district, the Hills, and all the other Malverns, now make a rather complex collection of articles. I'm suggesting looking at merging some of this is some way or another. Best to reply on my talk page. Kudpung (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, in principle I support a merge. To make the discussion a bit more concrete, would you collect a list of exactly which pages you are proposing to merge? GyroMagician (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * After now having edited and expanded almost all the pages that concerning Malvern in any way, I come to the conclusion  that the confusion  is between the article  Malvern, about the large, informal, singly unparished area that includes all the Malvern localities and their stubs, and the article that  specifically  discusses Great Malvern as the Malvern Town civil parish and its role as the main, but not geographically central part  of the Malvern 'connurbation'. Rather than a merging, a possible shift either way in the focus of the content of each  article may  be a better solution, but  would incur a carefully planned major rewrite of each,  to ensure that people seeking info on the area do not miss any significant facts. Time permitting, I  will  prepare some tentative draft articles for discussion. Kudpung (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The main problems is between Malvern and Great Malvern. Some of the info from Great Malvern should be moved to  Malvern Iccaldwell (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed also. I hope to have a possible draft for discussion sometime soon. In anticipation, some extension to both articles is still being carried out. Kudpung (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Kudpung, Iccaldwell, and others. I think the following should be merged into this article: Great Malvern, Malvern Link, Malvern Wells, North Malvern, Little Malvern, West Malvern and Barnards Green. For anyone unfamiliar with Malvern, it is confusing to have so many Malverns and most of those pages are unlikely to be read. A lot of information is also duplicated between them. For example, while Morgan are based in the Link, most people (reasonably) think of them as being based in Malvern. The first paragraph of this page explains it well. But I'm interested to see your drafts Kudpung, and my mind could easily be changed ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the merge & improve templates. They are ugly, and there are enough of us actively working on this article now, and checking  that I don't go  OTT with my contribs. The more I work on this with your help, I realise that there are workarounds without  needing to merge the articles, such  as disambig pages and some cross referencing using  tags without  duplicating  info. Some stuff needs to stay  in  both  for a while, but left a teasers for the pages that have the main content, or, as in  the example of Malvern Water, to a newly created page.--Kudpung (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Kudpung (and others), should this article be restricted to the civil parish, or should it be about Malvern (or The Malverns) in general? I prefer the latter, but I'm open to discussion. I think most people who come here will be looking for something general. I prefered this version of the introduction, which I think it describes Malvern well. GyroMagician (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merging such articles is a bad idea, they are all separate places that happen to share a common word in their name, and it goes against the Wikipedia logic that separate villages have separate articles. If anything, *this* article should be merged out into those articles, as I understand it, there isn't a town or village simply called "Malvern"? That is where the confusion is arriving, this article is regarding a place which doesn't really exist, Great Malvern is the town. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  12:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jenuk1985, welcome aboard! I now agree that the articles should not be merged (see Merging & Improving below). I would also oppose merging this article into those. While Malvern is not a formally defined town, it certainly exists as a locally recognised place - for e.g. I grew up in Barnards Green, but always describe myself as being from Malvern. The collection of towns/villages do have a common identity. I would like to see this article carry general Malvern information, and the sub-articles (Malvern Link, etc) include information specific to those parts of Malvern. GyroMagician (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, I'm sure all that discussion below wasn't there before! Lol, I think I'm going blind in my young age! This particular article could do with being cut down to nothing more than a summary of the area, with links as appropriate. Just so you know what relation I have to Malvern... none! My only connection is being in the same county :)  Jenuk1985  |  Talk  13:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Puts you a lot closer than me - I'm currently living in Lausanne! As to cutting down, I think it's tricky. For example, RSRE/DERA/Qinetiq is internationally known for being in Malvern, but had a site in Malvern Link and still has a site in Barnards Green. I think it is best listed on this page, as it had a significant impact on the whole of Malvern. GyroMagician (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Who is closest?
After reading the entire thread above again, all the Malvern articles, and many  talk pages of other groups of editors who  have had similar situaltions to  resolve, I've come to  a few conclusions. But first  a bit of background: I grew up in Malvern in several parts of the area including very close to  the very centre of Great Malvern, the Link, and Barnards Green where I  still have a home. When I was a kid, I had a couple of jobs that forced me to get to know the area as well as a postman. I agree that all these 'Malverns' are confusing. However, for the locals, the whole place is generally just 'Malvern' to  any  outsiders, and  among  themselves they  refer to  'up the Wells', down the Link, down the (barnards) Green, or just to the informal  names of some of the very  large housing  estates. The point is, that  none of the locals would be able to  draw a boundary around those places, and if you  start  a discussion  about in  a pub, it would go on  all night, and since the new licencing laws, it does too. It's a favourite bar stool debate. These are not separate villages. Apart from the four that are Civil Parishes in  their own right, they are just informal names for suburbs and as such, places like Barnards Green and Malvern Link shouldn't strictly  have a Wiki  page of their own at all, although maybe in history, they were independent  parishes.


 * Poolbrook,
 * Wyche, Upper
 * Wyche, Lower
 * Malvern Link,
 * Link Top
 * Sherrards Green,
 * Hall Green
 * Barnards Green
 * Great Malvern
 * North Malvern
 * Cowleigh,

These places: are Civil Parishes in their own right and therefore administratively have nothing to  do  with  Malvern, but  are part  of the 'The Malverns',  the informal  region. I've tried to explain the situation in  the intro, but  not very well, because it  still leaves Januk confused -  which means we're not there yet. The question is where Great Malvern begins and ends, and do we go  by  electoral boundaries, or by  traditional ones? Malvern Town doesn't exist, but it's the official  administrative area of the Malvern Council that covers the area we call Malvern and these areas in  it. The Wiki is clear enough that provable, formal  sources should be used wherever possible, therefore, Malvern = the area governed by  Malvern Town Council = the Civil parish combining  most of those named areas, including  Great Malvern which is a name informally  given to the part  considered to  be the town's centre and was previously  the largest of  the villages in the immediate area. If Wiki says we should have a page for every village, does that mean also for every suburb? Perhaps the Common Sense rule should prevail, because we need to draw the (boundary) line somewhere. That line could be the Civil parishes. If we adopt that rationale, then we have a major  article about 'Malvern, Worcestershire' that includes its 'areas' without a special sections of them, but  by  alluding  to  them  with  statements in  other sub sections such as 'Morgan Motors, located in  Malvern Link to the east  of the town centre, have been building  cars since blah blah...' and 'The Chase School, in  the area known as Barnards Green, 1.5 Km to  the east  of the town centre, has 2,000 SS stuying blah blah...' So I contend that Great Malvern should be merged with  Malvern, along  with any  of the informally  named suburbs whose page content  be absorbed into  Malvern, leaving  a redirect; and keeping  the pages for any  that  are Civil Parishes. Let's not make a rash decision, the Hills have been around for 700 million years and won't go away just  yet, but  within  the next couple of days, I'll have that draft ready, and then we can compare it with  what  Gyro  is doing.--Kudpung (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC).
 * Malvern Wells
 * Newland
 * Little Malvern
 * West Malvern

Motorways
Deletion reverted. There is no attempt in the text to pretend that the motorways are 'part of Malvern'. Even a casual reader would understand that the inclusion of motorways is intended to depict Malvern's proximity to them as part of the UK transport infrastructure that significantly affects the Malvern area. Not only is the M50 not part of Malvern as your rightly infer, but neither is the M5 which is also mentioned. Kudpung (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are already articles on the M50 and M5 and they should not be duplicated in an article on Malvern. Would you add it to all the articles on the all the villages between The Malverns and the Motorways? I do not think that Malvern is in the Proximity of the motorways. Just try and get to the M5 in busy periods. Iccaldwell (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The work is not duplicated. By your reasoning, there would be no mention of the railways either. As in a great many Wikipedia articles, short references and many short excepts are included for quick information, as for example in the case of Malvern Priory in  the Great Malvern article. <  You may also have noticed that internal links are provided to the major treatment of the motorways concerned. Whether the motorways are busy or not  is subjective POV and not of encyclopedic value. Malvern is close enough to motorways for them to have a mention of Malvern's access to them. If  you  had lived (and worked) in the region in pre-motorway days, you would appreciate the impact they have, and have had on the area's infrastructure. Imagine the Malverns (and the nearby Birmingham-Black Country-Coventry agglomeration) with today's traffic without them, esp. the impact  on  places such  as Droitwich  and Bromsgrove - not to mention access to the capital and its airports. However, Malvern and its related articles are a work very much in progress, and your observations on duplication, and other suggestions for improvement are most welcome, as there are current discussions on a possible merging of some other Malvern articles because of this. The other Malvern stubs already contain sufficient  internal  references to the main treatments of Malvern (the town), Malvern (the area), and Malvern (the district).  Kudpung (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Iccaldwell, the whole Transport section to too long and outside the scope of the page. We should try to reduce it to a single paragraph, briefly stating the transport links available. GyroMagician (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the transport section. I've tried to keep it brief, but include the basic transport links. Comments/updates welcome. GyroMagician (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it looks perfectly adequate now - Thanks :) --Kudpung (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Auden
Although I put it in here (because he was listed in Famous People), I'm not so sure that Auden should be mentioned in any of the Malvern articles at all (except Malvern Hills). Unless someone can come up with some fact such as living in the town or or doing something notable there, I think he's probably best left in Colwall, and in his own Wicki article. --Kudpung (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Malvern water
There's probably enough in here to split it off into a page of its own, leaving  just  a brief entry. It certainly has enough notability, and could then probably  be expanded just a bit  more. What do you all think?--Kudpung (talk)


 * Malvern Water has been split to its own article: Malvern Water.--Kudpung (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Improving

 * I like what you've done with the intro paragraph. I don't think we need to merge the separate pieces now. We could do with a map, showing how the different Malverns relate. I don't know where the wikipedia maps come from - maybe there is a group that take requests? GyroMagician (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've actually looked into this. Maps are difficult as they are practically all under copyright. I  solved this on some of my wine pages by writing to regional wine marketing authorities and asking  for permission to  reproduce complex maps of overlapping  wine regions. It was always granted, but I had to post a copy of the communications in the talk pages to satisfy the WP admins who sometimes tend to delete with their feet. --Kudpung (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea. I guess MHDC must have a basic map we could ask for permission to use. After a bit of poking around, these guys might be helpful - all we need now is a source map or two. GyroMagician (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Population Developement and History
I like the new pop. dev. section - it reads very well. But how about combining it with the history section (which could do with some work)? GyroMagician (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe by the time the History section  is fully developed, it  won't need meging  with  Pop. What  it  needs is certinly more info - but  there are plenty  of reliable sources, it's just  a question  of getting  round to  it.

Pop, however, needs some stats or a table t substantiate it, but  with  all  the boundary  changes, it'll be difficult to  get  an objctive profile. Same problem with maps. I've had a mighty poke around at various maps that are bunkered at low levels of the sites of two levels of  authorities we are dealing  with  here:

It's rather complicated, and I'm hoping that  by  compiling  this information, I may  be able to  learn something, while trying  to  shed some light  on  the confusion  for anyone hoping  to  get  some explanations from the Wiki. Basicazlly there are six wards of Malvern Town under the malvern Town Council - that's one map. Then there is Great Malvern which is one of the wards (ward 06) of Malvern Hills District, that roughly  corresponds not only to the town centre, but to approximately  the same area as the Malvern Town Council. Then we have the civil parishes of the Malvern HIlls District, some of which (Malvern Wells)  appear to  be inside (or partly) the boundaries of some of the other divisions. I tried to sort all this out  at  the library  and the council house last  year, but the people there were just  as confused as I  was. I'll be back in the UK for a couple of weeks soon, and I'll  try  again  if we don't find what  we need.
 * Malvern Town Council, and all the other PC of MHD
 * Malvern Hills District Council
 * Worcs CC.

So, the problem with maps is, what  exactly  do  we want  a map  to  represent? --Kudpung (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was picturing a simple map showing the outline of the hills, marking (but not labelling) major roads, showing the approximate location/extent of the various Malverns and Barnards Green. Something to give a quick picture for someone who has never been to Malvern. GyroMagician (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Google books just threw me this little gem: A general history of Malvern By John Chambers, 1817. It looks like it might be a useful source for the history section. GyroMagician (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Article structure
I'm starting to try this article into line with UKCITIES. The advice there is pretty helpful. Shall we try to get this up to GA? GyroMagician (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to think of places that should appear in a Landmarks section. So far I have the Hills, St. Annes Well, Priory, gas lamps above Malvern Common, I think there are a couple of listed letter-boxes. Any suggestions? GyroMagician (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a goodie and it already wikied: The Theatre of Small Convenience. Little Malvern Priory should be there too. GyroMagician (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think getting to GA was my main hope anyway, but we're still a long  way  off. The treatment of the civil parish is now covered by  Great Malvern which it is, but the civil  parish (officially  called Malvern Town) actually  extends over a much  greater area than just Great Malvern (which  has no  formal boudary either), but not over all the Malverns which make up the informal area we know as just  'Malvern'. You can certainly suggest or make some some cuts and/or moves to  the Malvern, Worcestershire article, because I  still think there is stuff in there that is non-town centre specific. Malvern, Worcestershire (this article), is now the general  article on  the informally  defined area of Malvern with  all its little bits & pieces that  it's supposed to  be. The difficulty arises because (as I have tried to  explain in  the various articles) that the boundaries of parishes, wards, etc do  not always coincide. One listed letterbox I know of is the Victirian one halfway up  the Worcs Rd. on  the left hand side between the Link and Link Top a couple of hundred metres up  from the station. A photo of it  would be a good idea. maybe I(ll make one when I get  back  to  Europe in  September. St Annes's well now has a mention, and a link to  Malvern Water where I  have described it  more & included a commons licence photo I  found on  flikr. Do go  ahead and put short mentions (perhaps copied/modified form their intros) of the LM priory and the Little Theatre - I  think it's a good idea, but  we now need to  watch  what  is really  in the town centre, and in the rest  of Malvern,  while avoiding  having  to  make a new third article about  Malvern Town Parish. Places like the Link & Barnards Green are only informal places but also have their own Wiki pages. --Kudpung (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Gyro, I've compared the two intro versions. They don't differ significantly  except that  I  removed the names of the suburbs because there is the roll-up list of them  at the bottom for reference. I was just  following  your principle that  'less is more'. Don't  hesitate to  revert it if you  prefer. Anyway, I  guess there are going to  be a lot more changes by  the time we have got the right balance of information into  the right articles.  --Kudpung (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Project: Cities
I don't now how that  banner got  on  to  this talk  page (may be good faith  enthusiasm from  the city  project  editors), but  Malvern is definitely  not a city. I have removed the link, as Wiki guidelines do  say  that wrong  category and/or project links can cause an article to be incorrectly assessed.Kudpung (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging
Please note that I  have grouped all  the comments (and my  latest  one) about  merging in to one thread in  chronological order. Right up thereat the top of the page↑. (It was my  fault for continuing  the discussion in the wrong  place.)Kudpung (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous edit
Re: 04:10, 10 July 2009 118.175.130.58 (talk) (49,514 bytes) (→Bibliography: additions (Bowden, Weaver)) Please note that  this edit  was in  fact by  me, Kudpung. I hasdn't realised the login had timed out before I clicked save. --Kudpung (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary of recent edits
I've done quite a lot in the past  few days, including  adding  photos, restructuring, pruning, and trying  to  bring  the article in line with  MoS (although  i'm sure there's a lot to  be done there). If you are checking  the edit  history, please forgive the high  number of edits - my satellite Internet connection is so  bad due to  Monsoon  cloud cover that  I  am  unable to  apply  more than a few Kb of changes at  a time.

1. I have removed this passage (included by one of the very  early  contributors, because I  have been unabl to find any  references to  it. There is evidence to suggest that Elgar composed part of the Enigma Variations in All Saint's, the parish church of Malvern Wells, but his offer of the original manuscript of his oratorio The Apostles, as a gift to the church, was refused by the Anglican church authorities because Elgar was a Roman Catholic and the oratorio was heavily based in that tradition.

2. I have removed this because although I  put it  in, I  don't think it's appropriate  here: ...and often used as a national anthem for England,Anthem 4 England - [http://anthem4england.co.uk/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1 Land of Hope and Glory

3. I've removed this list to add it  sometime later to  a more appropriate article: I've done just about  all  I  can on  this article now, so It's probably  time for some reviewing  by  the other contributors, and some peer review. Maybe together we can get the last  fixes done before nominating  it  for GA.--Kudpung (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * RRE Radar Research Establishment 1953 - 1957
 * RRE Royal Radar Establishment 1957 - 1976
 * RSRE Royal Signals and Radar Establishment 1976 - 1991
 * DRA Defence Research Agency April 1991 - April 1995
 * DERA Defence Evaluation & Research Agency April 1995 July 2001
 * QinetiQ & DSTL July 2000 - present
 * I'm going to slap some cn templates around, as I feel that the article is a bit low on sources. Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 11:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added 5 citation requests to the first two sections, both of which are currently completely unreferenced. I won't add any more yet, I'll give everyone a chance to catch up! Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 11:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I find there is little to be gained at  this stage by  searching  for citatinos for every  turn of phrase. The article is probably  too  long  anyway, and already  has 60 or so  references. So based on  less is more I think removing  the deadwood is probably  more apt. I've addressed your tags as follows:


 * Demise of traditional retail  shops in  the town  centre: rephrased to  have no connection  with  the consequences of supermarkets and retail parks.
 * 'Largest hotel' mention  deleted (lack of verifiable source), although  it  is the largest  single building  in  the town.
 * Suburbs: it would do the article no  service to  mention and reference the names of all  the farms and manors that  have been swallowed up and lent their names to new neigbourhoods, so  cutting  at  this stage is probably  better than further expansion.I
 * Sharp decline in Malvern popularity  as a spa is described in  detail in Hembry 1997. - ref added. --Kudpung (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, this article has improved a lot since I last read it through. I especially like all the photos. I've just had a another pass over it, making quite a few edits; there's more to do, but it's a start. I removed this paragraph:
 * From a building that still exists today that housed a radio listening post in Guarlford near TRE South Site, TRE was also instrumental in providing the RAF with the location of Peenemünde, the V2 rocket base in Germany that that was subsequently bombed by the RAF in the World War II Operation Crossbow.
 * It should maybe go back in, but I couldn't find a way to integrate it, so it's here as a reminder. GyroMagician (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cities
I've re-added the banner for the wiki-project cities. While Malvern certainly isn't a city, it falls within the scope of the project - to quote:


 * Scope


 * This WikiProject aims primarily to provide information and a consistent format for cities of the world. "Cities" include municipalities and other civil divisions, including cities, towns, villages, hamlets, townships, unincorporated communities, sections of municipalities, and neighborhoods.

It's a confusing name for the project, but we should be in. GyroMagician (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that. I have been meaning  to but  i  forgot. I have had some discussion about  it  on another page with the people from 'Cities'. Apparently  the proj  was created across the pond where every  settlement  is of course called a city. They do  admit the name of their proj is a tad confusing, and there is some debate over there as to  whether it should be changed. More imortantly, there is a strong  consensus that  every  single settlement  should have an entry - with  some obvious common sense exceptions (see talk  this page further up).--Kudpung (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Malvern Town vs Malvern Town Council vs Civil Parish
We may be still unsure about  whether Malvern is a  a town or a civil  parish, or both: ''...As a result, a parish council can also be called a town council, a community council, a village council or occasionally a city council ... ...A parish council can become a town council unilaterally, simply by making a resolution to do so. Around 400 parish councils are called town councils'', - from Civil parish. Personally, after a lot of research, I think the debate is more a question  of semantics than of  local  administration  fact.--Kudpung (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's possible for a civil parish to be a town, for example: Shaw and Crompton and Partington, Greater Manchester. Malvern council describes itself as a town council, which counts as a reliable source that it's a town. It is also described as a civil parish. So as far as I can tell it's both. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(following 2 posts copied from  Worcs project  talk)
 * I suspect that the correct name of the parish is actually Great Malvern, though the parish also includes Malvern Link. Malvern Wells and Little Malvern are spearate civil parishes.  A town with a "Town Council" is a civil parish, whose parish council has adopted that name.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The 2001 census lists the parish as "Malvern Town", I'd suggest that's the most accurate source we have? Malvern, Worcestershire probably should be moved to Malvern Town to adequately reflect the name of the civil parish. Though to be honest, I'm still in favour of merging Malvern, Worcestershire into Great Malvern. Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 16:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The only time I've ever heard Malvern referred to as Malvern Town is by the football club. I think we aim to conform to common usage on Wikipedia? In that case, 'Malvern, Worcs' is certainly the best title for the page. In common local usage, Malvern refers to the general locality of all the Malverns, plus Barnards Green. As an alternative, we could call the page 'The Malverns', but I think this would be confused with the Hills. No, Malvern is not easily defined as a town, a civil parish, or any other neat demarcation that I know of. But it still exists as an entity in local usage. I think the current structure serves us well, with most information given on this page, and more localised information on Great Malvern, Malvern Link, etc. As I've previously pointed out, if we merge this page into Great Malvern, then Morgan cars won't appear (they'll be on the Link page) and QinetiQ will appear in Barnards Green with the old North Site appearing at Link Top. I don't think that is very satisfactory. To put it another way, when asked where I'm from, I say Malvern, even though it appears that Malvern doesn't exist. GyroMagician (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, the undefined area of Gt Malvern is cut in two by two parish wards. All official government sources refer to either Malvern, or to Malvern Town Council. In my opinion, this leaves Gt Malvern today as just one of the many neighbourhoods with a name - just like Malvern Link or Poolbrook, for example, but as the place that just happens to include the historical town centre. By contrast  however, it  is Malvern that  has a clearly defined administrated boundary that  encompasses its six wards. So if the council by error, ignorance, or omission, don't use the plain word Malvern, neigbourhoods will  continue to be referred to  by  their names in  popular culture. Strangely however, nobody  much refers to  Great  Malvern. To the locals, it's just  'up town', or 'in  the town', whereas the other areas are almost  always refterred to  locally by  their names, or at  least  The Link' or 'The Green', and everyone one knows what is meant, and nobody  is going  to  suggest  that  Malvern Link,  Barnards Green (where I  also  have a house), Link  Top, or Poolbrook  are in  Great  Malvern! --Kudpung (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments before going for GA status
I've only gone through the history section in detail, but as a general comment some sections use bullet points too much. For example, the sports section and the list of places of worship. Prose is preferred to lists, so it would preferably be summarised (the list could be moved into a list of places of worship in Malvern Hills). A few quick points: the external links section needs trimming really, everyone in notbale people needs a reference.
 * I would suggest that the list deal with a much smaller area. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Early history
 * The early and recent history sections should probably be merged into an overall history section with "early" and "recent" as subheadings.
 * Given that Malvern was "It has been known as Malferna (11th century.)" was it mentioned in the Domesday Book?
 * I know that WP:UKCITIES puts toponomy at the start of the history section, but it isn't necessary and can be counter-intuitive to mention the 11th century and then jump back to the Iron Age. Sale, Greater Manchester, is a successful example where the toponomy can be integrated chronologically.
 * MOS:DASH states that in ranges, for example date ranges, ndashes should be used instead of hyphens (ie: 16th–17th century not 16th-17th century). I've sorted out the dashes in this article, but it's worth remembering for other articles.
 * "...Edward the Confessor granting the charter..." what charter?
 * While I see the merits of explaining the different stories of the priory's foundation, stating what an 18th century document claims or the source Victoria History uses seems to be going a bit beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. What could be done is state something like "It is accepted that Aldwyn was the founder of the priory and the first prior. There are various dates for its foundation, some sources reporting it as 1083 and others as 1085, such as the gravestone of the second prior". The stuff about petitioning the Earl of Gloucester could be moved to immediately after St Wulfstan suggests the founding of a priory.
 * I have moved the placename material to the top. Since the name is of British origin, this is certainly appropriate.  I have aslo added a number of  tags, where referneces are needed.  Webster, Cornovii deals with Caractacus, placing the battle probably in east Wales.  Croft Ambrey and Midsummer Hill were excavated by Stanford, whose published reports should be cited; I am not sure who did Bredon.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The material on the priory is much too detailed for this article. It might be appropriate in the article on Great Malvern Priory, but even there it would need tidying up.  This needs to be done by some one who knows the literature, which I do not.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

One final thought, as this is all I will be able to do today, could the sections on suburbs and the town centre be merged into a single geography section? There's been some very good work so far, but the article needs to be spruced up a bit before GAC. Nev1 (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Recent history
 * What about the Dissolution of the Monasteries, did that affect Malvern?
 * The first paragraph of recent history could go in governance as it details the history of Malvern's administration. Also, it does need a source.
 * When Great Malvern railway station was opened, what line was it a part of?
 * "...later Acts empowered the Conservators to acquire land to prevent further encroachment..." what is meant by further encroachment? Of the railways, or hotels, or villas, or what?
 * The last part of the final paragraph needs a source


 * I don't dispute for a moment that  a lot  of work is still needed before going  GA.  I've addressed some of your points as follows:


 * All the people in the Notables section either already have their own articles in Wikipedia, or references are provided if not.
 * The usual solution is (I think) that notables should be like a disambiguation article. People without an article and not referred to in others (e.g. MP lists) are probably NN, and so should be removed. Adding a name to this list is a variety of spam-edit.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it would be very  difficult to make a prose paragraph  out of the list  of Places of Worship. Maybe someone who  is good at  tables could make a table of it. It's an important  section, because Malvern has a huge number of churches in  relation  to  its size,  because most  of them  sparang  up  to  cater for the spirtual  needs of the 19th century  population  explosion.
 * Dissolution of the monasteries: By the time of the dissolution, Malvern was already  an established community  of lay people. The people of Malvern actually clubbed together and paid £200 for the church. The abbey  buildings were however demolishe, leaving  the Abbey gateway as its only  vestige. However, i've tried hard not  to  turn this article too much  into  an ecclesiastical history. What is needed however, is substantial expansion to the Malvern Priory article - plenty  of sources exist.
 * History: If I say "it is accepted" someone will place a weasel  word tag  on  it. Weaver & Osborne 2006 makes a 'conclusion'. One dictionary  defines conclusion as an intuitive assumption, therefore I would caution any  reader of WP or of their book against accepting  their evidence as a fait  accompli. My  conclusion  is that  legend and facts have been confused over the annals of time and nobody  can be really  sure. The mention of the different  variations of the story  are intended to  illustrate this. Most  important  is to  establish some kind of date when Malvern as a settlement  (staring  with  the monks) began. I would happily  prune all  this down if I just  knew how.
 * History/Governance: moved as suggested, and topic sentence modified to emphasise that  Malvern is indeed both  a town and a civil parish (see Wikpedia Civil parish).
 * Early & Recent  History merged under one heading  with  sub headings as suggested.
 * Malvern Station has its own article, I  don't think it is really necessary  to expand it  here.
 * Encroachment: the words common land added. The Conservators are responsible for all  the common land around Malvern.
 * Suburbs & Town centre: One of my earlier drafts (not  online) had this as a single section. However, the section  was too  long, and a distinction  needs to  be given to  enable the 'main' link  to the Great  Malvern article. I  think user GyroMagician will  support this too, as he also  comes from Malvern and understands the difficulties in  writing  accurately  about  the somewhat vague traditional  boundaries versus the parish ward boundaries and all  the changes they  have been subjected to. I have changed this to 'Infrastructure' and made the town centre and suburbs  as sub sections, with a 'see also' for the Great  Malvern instead of a link  to  main.
 * Toponomy. There is a huge Iron Age earthworks in the Malvern Hills that  dates the existence of as settlement  in  the area since before the Common  Era. However, there don't appear to  be any  recorded names for this.  The massive earthworks are some 3/4 miles from  the town centre and bear no provable relationship  to  the later development  of the site of the abbey which  all medieval reports describe as an almost  impenetrable forest. An late 18th  century  engraving  shows the priory  Church surrounded by  grazing  cattle and just  three or four houses. I have reorganised the prose into  chronological  order as you  suggested. --Kudpung (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CE is an American PC-ism. Use AD and BC in England.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, unfortunately the individual articles could change and the reference lost. It's like citing wikipedia, it's not done because realistically it's not a reliable source.
 * Fair enough then, turning the list of churches into prose was a bit unrealistic (the best that could be managed is something like "there are xx churches in Malvern).
 * Hmm, I see what you mean about not wanting to turn this into an article about the priory, but I think what you mentioned there should go in. It's a nice summary and readers will be wondering what happened to the priory.
 * I'm a bit ambivalent about the legends and how best to approach them. I like your approach because it gives the reader all the information, but it still feels like a bit too much for and article not specifically about the priory. I'd be content to leave it as it is though.
 * I don't think there's any need to add in much more information about the railway station, just what line it was a part of when it was opened. It would only be a little info that could be tagged onto the end of a sentence.
 * Do you mean British Camp? I think it's worth mentioning in the article. It's not directly related to the settlement, but you can say something like "British Camp, a hill fort, provides evidence of activity in the area during the Iron Age". I think it's worth mentioning the medieval castle on the same site as well. Castles are medieval symbols of power and supremacy over the local populace. I'm sure that if it was only 3/4 miles away from Malvern it directly affected the settlement. Nev1 (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as I  stay alive (10 -20 years?) and a regular Wiki  editor,  I've kind of made it a personal  mission  to  improve and maintain  all the Malvern related articles, so  although I might  be slower at  working  on  those, I  will  ensure that  the data or links stay  updated. Unfortunately, I can't  find a verifiable source for the £200 they  paid for  the church, it  comes from  a source that  itself has no  references. I'll add the essential  info to the station. Yes, I  did indeed mean the British Camp, and I  had already  inserted it  before you  replied ;) BTW: I now see and undertstand what  Jenuk has done with  the parish  template - apologies all  round for any  misunderstanding - she and I  work so  quickly that  we are often online at  the same time but the left  hand doesn't always know what  the right  hand is doing:) . We just  need to verify  now that  the template list  complies with  mine that  was taken very  recently  from  the MHDC web site. --Kudpung (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The template only contains links to existing articles, we shouldn't be adding large quantities of links in a navbox to articles that don't yet exist. The List of civil parishes in Worcestershire article will need quite a bit of work to bring it up to a decent standard. There is still one section I need to tabulise, and it needs sourcing. It may be worth creating redirects from civil parish names to the list article. Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 11:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The MHDC list of parishes was up to  date with  only  one red link  left  - I as working  on  it  last  night but  havent't posted it  yet. By  contrast, Wychavon  is going  to  be a headache.--Kudpung (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't navigating parish articles, it was still linking village articles, and by virtue of that organisation, it was missing a large proportion of the villages. Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 12:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The addition of redlinks to navboxes shows what is missing. This is useful as long as they are not going to stay indefinitely.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

article history
Please note again that  edits by  118.175.130.58 are from  me, Kudpung. I hadn't realised again that  my  connection  had timed out during  the edit.--Kudpung (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Econony Section
The economy section currently contains two parts I don't think belong there, but I have no idea where to place. The first is a Three Counties. I think maybe that should appear under culture, but I'm not sure. The second is the Water. It's a small part of the local economy, so probably not notable. Water is mentioned elsewhere in the article (modern history, I think), so maybe we should just delete the paragraph in the Economy section? GyroMagician (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Valid points Giro. However, as I see it, agriculture contributes significantly  to  the town's economy, much  of the arable and pasture is in  or overlaps into  the Malvern parish  area, and the 3 Counties showground also  boosts the economy, particularly  the hospitality  industry when something  big  is going  on  there. I probably  wouldn't entirely  delete the water section. It's  vital  to  almost everything  Malvern stands for, but  you  may  be right  about  it not  being  in the right  place. It  was clearly  the one thing  that  boosted Malvern's economy and rapid growth  in  the 19th  century, but  today it's significance, although  important, is more probably  a cultural  issue - the commercial bottling  of the water takes place  in  Colwall, not in  Malvern, nor even in Worcestershire.--Kudpung (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Demography
What does this line mean?

Of those aged 16–74 in Malvern, 48.1% had no academic qualifications or at least one GCSE

No, or at least one qualification, sounds like it includes 100% to me! Should that read no, or only one? GyroMagician (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good catch, I've changed it to "... or one GCSE". I usually use a different format for demography sections using different sets of data that aren't available for civil parishes that has "no qualifications" on its own. I must have got confused by the less than crystal clear explanation provided by statistics.gov of what a level 1 qualification is. Nev1 (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you have the patience to plough through those Government stats docs! Makes sense now. Do you think this section would work better as a table, rather than prose? It is really a list of numbers - it might make it easier to absorb? GyroMagician (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Early History
Based on a couple of suggestion, I'm suggesting  cutting  out  the legend of Caractacus entirely, just  leaving  a mention of the Iron Age settlement  and the later castle.--Kudpung (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this will almost certainly be found in older local histories. A similar claim is made for the Clent Hills.  It is probably better to leave it in (with a citation - when found) and then say that modern scholars (e.g. Webster) do not accept it.  Otherwise some one will find the information and add it badly!  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Notable people
The notability of the two or three notable people who  don't have Wiki  articles is probably  supported by  the verifiable references provided. Not having a Wiki  article is not  per se a lack  of notability. In fact  they  are almost  certainly  candidates for a Wiki  article. Perhaps the solution would be to  red-link  them in  anticipation (MOS) that  someone will  be good enough  to  create the stubs or complete articles. Something maybe that I could do  later when I  have more time. There is enough material  where I  found the original  sources. At present I'm  making  a concentrated effort on  another urgent category  in  Worcs.--Kudpung (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Who is Mary Taylor Slow? I'm all for listing scientists, but I'm not sure why she is notable? She may well be important for some reason, but it isn't explained in the article, and doesn't (yet) have her own page. GyroMagician (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Having a biography in  Wikipedia is not  an absolute criteria for notability,  as long  as references are provided. The lady  made significant  scientific contributions to  the war effort. There is enough  material  about her to  make an article if any  one feels inclined. However, if any  editors disagree, the entry  can  be deleted. BTW, there are enough  notable people connected with Malvern not  listed in this article who  have Wiki  pages to  make a dedicated Wiki  list  page for people Associated with  Malvern.--Kudpung (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Kudpung. I'm not saying she isn't notable, and I certainly don't think a person needs a wiki page before they can be listed. However, if MTS made a significant contribution to the war effort, that fact should be listed and illustrated with at least one example. Lots of people in Malvern know a lot about radio wave propagation and have PhD's - that in itself isn't notable. On reading her gap-biography I've removed her, as she didn't actually work at TRE.GyroMagician (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture size
Hi Kudpung, I see you've been fixing the picture size to 230px. This looks nice on my laptop, with a relatively small screen, but far too tiny on my desktop with a much larger/higher resolution screen. Isn't it better to leave the size to WikiMedia magic, to automatically guess a sensible size? GyroMagician (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, I've been thinking  about  that  and I  was already  going  to  ask  your advice. I  have a large 22" flat screen and use Firefox on  Mac, but  I  just  can't  figure out the best  way  to  get  the pics in  the right  places and at  the right  size. Thanks also  for your excellent  copy  editing. I'm  mentally preparing  myself for my  trip  to  Barnards Green at  the end of this month, when I hope to  take some better pictures. In  the meantime, I  think there is nothing  stopping  us now in going  for a GA assessment. The worst  that  can  happen  is that if it fails, they  will  put it  on  hold for a week  for us to  do  the neccessary  tweaks. What  do  you  think?--Kudpung (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC) BTW: the pics are of course only  thumbnails, clicking  on  them  loads the full size images.


 * Normally images are un-sized, apart from the lead image, so that user-preference can take-over.


 * Having a quick look at article I would think that you need to add reference detail, such as the publisher which is missing from a number of entries. Reference 21 "Chambers, p.9" is used but no detail of the book given. For GA the lead needs to be expanded to summarise the whole article and the bulleted lists need turning into prose. Keith D (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Chambers ref fixed. Intro expanded. Bulleted lists than can be turned into  prose have been changed. Others have been removed.

churches

 * All Saints Church, (CofE), Wells Road
 * All Saints, The Wyche, 1903, 13th-century style. (CofE)
 * Christ Church, Great  Malvern, 1874, 14th century Gothic style.  (CofE)
 * Church of the Ascension, Malvern  Link.   (CofE)
 * Holy trinity, North Malvern, 1842, The style is 13th-century Gothic. (CofE)
 * Landsdowne Methodist Church,  1886, Great Malvern
 * Malvern Baptist Church, Abbey Road
 * Malvern Evangelical Church, Pickersleigh Road
 * Malvern Hills Life Church, Worcester Road
 * Somers Park Avenue Methodist Church
 * St Andrew, Poolbrook, 1885, 13th century style. (CofE)
 * St James', West Malvern (CofE)
 * St Giles Church, (CofE), Wykewane
 * St Joseph Church, (RC) Newtown Road
 * St Leonard in  Newland 1864, 14th century style. (CofE)
 * St Mary's Church, (CofE) Sherrards Green (a modern church c1960)
 * St Mary the Virgin, 1844, Guarlford, (CofE)
 * St Mathias, Malvern Link (CofE) c1896. The church has a set of ten ringing  bells. The first  full  peal (Grandsire Triples) was rung  on 1 June 1901
 * St Wulstan's R.C. Church Ledbury Road
 * Quaker meeting House, Orchard Road
 * Wyche Free Church, Jubilee Drive --Kudpung (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am creating a new page for places of Worship in Malvern; See: User:Kudpung/Places of worship in Malvern, Worcestershire (draft) If anyone wants to  contribute to  it  there before it  goes live, please don't  hesitate.--Kudpung (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

primary schools
--Kudpung (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Great Malvern Primary School LEA (near Barnards Green)
 * Grove Primary School (off Pickersleigh Road)
 * Hanley Swan St Gabriel's with St Mary's C of E Primary (Hanley Swan)
 * Malvern Hills Primary School LEA (Poolbrook)
 * Malvern Parish CofE Primary School (Great Malvern)
 * Malvern Wells CofE Primary School (Wells Road, Malvern)
 * Malvern Wyche CofE Primary School (Lower Wyche Road)
 * Malvern, Northleigh CofE Primary School (North Malvern)
 * Somers Park Primary School LEA (Malvern Link)
 * St James' CofE Primary School (West Malvern Road)
 * St Joseph's Catholic Primary School (Newtown Road - near Link  Top)
 * St Matthias CofE Primary School (Malvern Link)

Reference format
Hello All,

I've started updating the reference format to use cite templates (WP:CT). It's a monster task, so if anyone fancies joining in, please feel free. I've made a list of completed sections below - please cross off any sections you complete:

* Lede * 1 Urban infrastructure o 1.1 Town centre o 1.2 Suburbs and neighbourhoods * 2 History o 2.1 Early history o 2.2 Recent history * 3 Governance * 4 Demography o 4.1 Population development * 5 Economy * 6 Culture o 6.1 Architecture o 6.2 Music o 6.3 Dramatic Arts + 6.3.1 Mainstream theatre + 6.3.2 Fringe Festival o 6.4 Malvern in Literature o 6.5 Malvern water * 7 Places of worship * 8 Health Facilities * 9 Transport o 9.1 Road o 9.2 Rail o 9.3 Bus o 9.4 Air * 10 Education o 10.1 High Schools o 10.2 Independent Schools o 10.3 Further Education * 11 Leisure * 12 Sport * 13 Notable people

I am also considering moving to the ref style now used on the Malvern Water page, placing the actual bulk of the ref at the bottom of the page, and simply using the named reference in the text (thanks WotNow!). I think this style is much clearer. I am also trying to work out how best to handle lots of different refs to the same book, but to different pages. The current style treats each as a new reference, which I find slightly confusing. I don't have a good answer yet though, so if anybody else know a good way to handle this, I'd love to know. Comments? GyroMagician (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You could just use the Harvard citation style, which just gives the page number and a link to the book details given in a list following the references. Someone has recently converted Wakefield to use this style if you want an example. Keith D (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks like what I wanted, thanks! Does anyone mind if I start converting the Malvern article to use the same ref style? GyroMagician (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have begun adding the formatting style which we used in the Malvern Water article. But rather than do the whole article in one hit, I have deliberately done only the references for the first section. The reason is to demonstrate that the reformatting into that style can be done piecemeal, without disrupting the existing text or references.

Regarding the citations for the first section, the Phylis Hembry reference (currently #3) contains multiple citations, and again to demonstrate the ability to do this particular exercise piecemeal, I have deliberately left the very last citation in the previous style This demonstrates not only that the exercise can be done piecemeal without pain, but that if something is overlooked, it causes no disruption. However, the beauty of this particular formatting style, is that it simplifies the exercise of checking for errors in both text and references, which itself means better error reduction. For example, after doing this exercise in one article, I found a reference which had gotten lost in the Wikibizzo clutter that was interwoven with the article's text. That particular type of error is highly unlikely in this article, because of there is good editorial diligence (although only by diligence, not by ease of the task). I mention it only as an example of how easy it gets to pick up errors one wasn't aware of (there being two primary types of error: commission and omission, with omission being by definition the hardest to detect).

I will check back in a few hours, and pick up where I, or the next editor, left off.Wotnow (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow


 * Have a look at the Harvard citation style Keith D pointed me to. I think this would be perfect for this article - it would probably make sense to convert to that style at the same time as moving the refs to the bottom. GyroMagician (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers. I've had a look at that article. Given the time delay regarding visible actions on my part, bit of work-in-progress feedback is in order.
 * The Harvard citation style adds another layer to the process, my primary aim being to move the lengthy citations out of the body of the text, with the overall aim being a modicum of optimaity in ease of editing, with associated error detection and reduction. However, I don't see the Harvard citation implementation as mutually exclusive with my aim as so far elucidated. Rather, the question is, how can the implementation of the two processes be achieved?


 * Looking at the example of the Wakefield article, the Harvard style as used to date has selectively inserted inline citation brevity, while leaving other lengthy citations embedded within the article. So as I found it, it neither answered my question, nor demonstrated the editorial optimality as elucidated.


 * So, after a bit of unsuccessful experimenting with the Malvern article (via the preview function), I've tackled the question from within the Wakefield article itself. I inserted the relevant bits [((reflist|2|refs= ...)) immediately after the "notes" sub-heading, leaving everything else intact. Preview showed this step alone didn't affect the article. Then, I took a couple of the inline citations that had been left within the body of the text, added name=myRefName, gave them an inline citation in the ((r|myRefName)) format, and moved the reference itself out of the body of the text. This worked nicely, and I have saved this result for review.


 * The article itself reads exactly the same. The only difference is in the ease of editing. And also demonstrated is that where the use of the Harvard style for inline citations has achieved the stated aim of brevity for ease of editing, this can be left as is. That is, the aims are not mutually exclusive, and some variation in the citation approach does not affect the end result.


 * Having achieved that, namely a piecemeal step which can be reviewed for deconstruction (or reverse engineering) purposes, I am turning my attention again to the Malvern article.Wotnow (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Referencing update
I have now added the basic "notes" and "bibliography" format as exemplified in the Wakefield article. To kick-start the process, so there isn't an empty section to cause confustion, I have taken a simple, one-off citation (Chambers (1817) citation) using an equivalent simple, one-off citation (Holt, 1997) from the Wakefield article. I note by the way that strictly speaking, a bibliography entails listing of all sources used.

Strictly adhered to then, one could end up with lengthy lists containing duplicate information. So the system of listing notes and bibliography separately is probably most optimal in situations where there are multiple citations from the same author, as in the Wakefield article, with the caveat that strictly speaking, all sources should be listed once in the bibliography. The Wakefield article does not currently do this, and it is not unreasonable to ask what would be the point anyway. I was well aware of this conundrum when working on the Captain R.T. Claridge article, but conveniently ignored it until now. Having pondered on it as part of the current exercise, I've changed the section to "Further reading", utilising a trick used by many authors to get around the problem of extensive duplication.

So I think that while we should strive for some sense of perfection, we shouldn't be too surprised if we never quite get it 'right', because there probably is no "right" way that covers all bases - typically the best we can do is seek optimal heuristics. I haven't found any system of knowledge, including referencing, where one nice, simple approach covers all bases. Everything seems subject to John D. Barrow's "Groucho Marx Effect".

Meantime, probably the easiest approach in this article is to work through the references and 'park' them at the bottom as we go. That way, the article reads the same, but the editorial process gets progressively easier, as we refine the references, and declutter the article at the same time. Just some thoughts.Wotnow (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Observations on the referencing project

 * 1) The William Shakespeare article is a better example of how to utilise the "notes" and "bibliography" style, and the sort of context in which it is useful - especially detailed analysis of singular works, with multiple citations thereof. And it lists almost all sources in the bibliography, not a partial listing, which is not a bibliography at all, but better called 'further reading', or 'select bibliography', or something similarly more accurate
 * 2) I think the Wakefield article would be better served by using the style we used in Malvern Water, and which is also used for example, in Richard Dawkins. I note by the way that we did better than the Dawkins article in that regard. We followed the standard heuristic of giving the full citation at first mention, and partial but sufficient citation thereafter (the only 'rule' being that the reader must always be able to figure out the source). The Dawkins article contains examples of multiple full citations of the same work, which is unnecessary.

The Wakefield is fine enough. The referencing is sub-optimal. The article can of course go to the trouble of fleshing out the bibliography, but for the sorts of citations made, it would end up with large portions being duplicate lists. So it would be better off with the style mentioned above. The 'notes' section for example, is not 'notes'. It contains some notes. But it also contains references. And the bibliography is not a bibliography. It is at best a partial bibliography. Why emulate such an approach? If we are to continue the current path, we should look to emulating the Shakespeare article.Wotnow (talk) 08:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow


 * I'm getting a bit lost in the differences between these articles. The Dawkins article has the references in the body text, like most other Wikipedia pages - I thought that was something we were trying to move away from? Wakefield uses the Harvard style, keeping references out of the body text, as does Shakespeare. The only difference I can see between Shakespeare and Wakefield in the section names (References/Bibliography vs. References:Notes/Bibliography). I agree that the Shakespeare naming is more consistent with a general academic style, and would prefer to use that. (On looking closer at Wakefield, I see that it is a mixture of traditional inline references and Harvard style. I guess it's a work-in-progress, like everything else around here ;-)


 * Wotnow - you say I note by the way that strictly speaking, a bibliography entails listing of all sources used. I don't understand - I thought that went without saying. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we do not include some sources in the bibliography. What I am trying to achieve is to separate page references from full references, so that we only include full citation details once, reducing errors and increasing maintainability. 'Further Reading' is a completely different section, used for listing anything not cited in the text, but relevant to the interested reader anyway. We should not mix 'Further Reading' with the bibliography. GyroMagician (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Inline citations, editing citations, and referencing layouts
 * Hi again GyroMagician. A belated response to the above post, which I apologise for overlooking. Firstly, I agree that there is no suggestion of not including some sources in the bibliography, for either the Malvern or Wakefield articles. Rather, what I'm trying to say is that some referencing layouts lend themselves readily to some types of article, but create problems for other articles. As you are probably aware, there are quite a few referencing styles out there, for various reasons. Sometimes it is of course sheer academic competition. But mostly it's because no single style lends itself to every situation, with some referencing styles creating more problems than solutions in some situations.


 * Using the Dawkins article as an example, I compare it in two ways regarding referencing.


 * First, references in the text body of articles such as Richard Dawkins. The Malvern Water article, following User:Chienlit's update of Vincenz Priessnitz, shows how to deal effectively with that issue while still retaining a simple referencing style for articles where it is more useful. So the referencing style of the three articles looks the same to a reader, but the crucial difference is that Priessnitz and Malvern Water are more efficient in the behind-the-scenes editing text. And the other difference being that we use the referencing style more efficiently in Malvern Water than in Dawkins, where whole references are repeated several times, when a partial citation with page would not only suffice, but is standard practice (so we get that right in the Malvern Water article).


 * Regarding inline citations. The inline citation pertains to the numbering within the text, which of course takes the reader to the full citation, just as in a book (except all we have to do now is click a mouse, rather than flick back-and-forth amongst pages while trying to keep track of our reading). How the inline citation is managed in the behind-the-scenes editing text is a separate issue. Whether one uses the Harvard style, or the full reference embedded in the text, or the style adopted by User:Chienlit, the end-result is an inline citation. The differences we're dealing with then, pertain to the layout of the references, and the issue of getting the behind-the-scenes citation out of the body of the text for ease of editing.


 * On the layout issue, we can compare the Malvern Water and Shakespeare articles as examples. The Shakespeare one seems to exemplify the type of situation where the 'notes' and 'bibliography' separation serves a visible purpose. There is a comprehensive looking bibliography, and the 'notes' section is used in a manner that makes sense: For example, Schoenbaum (1987) is a 384 page book, cited some 40 times, each with specific page notation.


 * Conversely, if we list a single web-page multiple times, it can look a bit pointless. For such cases, to emulate the 'notes' style, we would perhaps cite the specific paragraph. As you probably know, some legal documents such as contracts, policies, and legislation do this paragraph-by-paragraph blow (which equates to page-by-page), especially if the document is lengthy or complex, or both. This is not what we normally face with a single web page citation.


 * In the Malvern, Worcestershire article, a website citation where the 'notes' approach can work, is the Malvern Hills citations from the BBC and English Heritage websites. In each case, we cite a page from the website, and can relay this in the citation, which I realised while trying to get the format to work.


 * But look at a book citation we use. Hembry, Cowie & Cowie (1997). There, the book is cited in a generic sense multiple times. Nothing particularly wrong with that: it's common practice. But using the 'notes' and 'bibliography' style, it starts to look a bit silly listing the same generic reference multiple times, without anything more informative along the way. In such an instance, the "a", "b", "c", etc notations preceding the reference seems neater and more efficient.


 * By contrast with the Shakespeare article, the Malvern Water article uses only a handful of multiple citations, for which "a", "b", "c", etc for each repeat citation is fine. A reader starting at the first inline citation of say, Poynter (1947) can click to the reference, and either back to where he or she left off in the text, or can click to see where Poynter is next cited. In that case, the reader would find the quote from Breviary of the Eyes. Since the Poynter reference is pay-per-view, the reader is lucky enough that we've found an alternative source that can be read for free (Chambers, 1817, p.140). So the referencing style used in the Malvern Water article serves its purpose very well, and is closer to our purposes than the Shakespeare article.Wotnow (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow.


 * Hello again Wotnow, this article is getting busy! I've just tried the references you've recently been editing - they don't work for me. For e.g. ref no. 9 (Smith, 1978, p3). If I click 9, I am taken to the 'notes' section as expected. However, when I click 'Smith 1978' it doesn't go anywhere. I would expect this to take me to the full details of the Smith book in the bibliography section. Any idea what's wrong? GyroMagician (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey there GyroMagician. Busy indeed, although much of that is multiple small changes as we figure things out. I confess that the reference links didn't work for me either, but I decided I'd work that out later, if the solution didn't naturally arise meantime from the process. It turns out to be a combination of formatting, and in a couple of cases it was simply typos on my part (Hembry et al is 1997, not 1977; and it's Griffiths & Griffiths, not Griffiths & Joyce). I still have my doubts about the usefulness of this referencing style for this type of article, as compared say to the Shakespeare article, but nevertheless, it will do no harm, and it's an interesting exercise involving a modicum of learning.Wotnow (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow


 * I just  wanted to  let  you  guys know that  what  you  are doing is absolutely brilliant. Sorry  I can't  be much help at  the moment. --Kudpung (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers Kudpung. Good to see the article is beginning to move again.Wotnow (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow


 * Hi Wotnow, First of all, congratulations on sorting out the linking problem in the references - it works like a charm now. I think I am beginning to understand your hesitation in using this style for the page. I think it works very well for Smith (refs 6, 8 and 9). I don't really understand why refs 42-45 don't all appear as the same reference, while Hembrey, Cowie & Cowie (ref 3) do? In the longer term I would hope all book references would include a page number - the original referencing style tended to discourage this, but I think it is reasonable to at least specify a chapter, rather than a whole book. For a simple website though, this style does seem to be overkill. Maybe there is another style out there that would better serve us? I would be happy to have refs appearing as [3,pp27-35] as a way to handle the problem (or something similar), but I don't know a wiki-syntax to achieve this. Anyway, I have a tree to decorate. Happy Christmas All! GyroMagician (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers GyroMagician. I tried to elaborate my thoughts in my response above, which you may have read. I've just given it a heading to reflect what I think are the main points being made, and make it easier to navigate our dialogue.


 * I initially kept the changes to one multiple general citation (Hembrey, Cowie & Cowie) to illustrate the solution, and to make it easier for others to review. That way there's only a few changes to check, with everything after that being the repeats of the same technique.


 * I was also worried that I might be inadvertently creating discouragement and stalling the momentum. So by finding a solution, and making an illustrative change, I could step back and see what others thought. I've now amended the other refs.


 * I agree that for simple website citations, the style can seem like overkill. And indeed I guess for simple citations of any sort. I don't see any simple solutions for all occasions. Only picking the most suitable compromise for any given context. The exercise did at least provide a reminder that in some instances, a given web-page is just that: a page. So it can be cited as a page on a larger website. Obvious on reflection, but easily overlooked.


 * Regarding book citations, while it can be useful to cite specific pages and/or chapters, which I myself try to do whenever practical, I don't see this as critical, as long as the information provided is sufficient for someone to track down the source.Wotnow (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Town or not a town? That was the question...
As I have nominated this article for GA, and as I  want  to  put  any  outstanding  matters to  bed, I've been concerned for months about  an opinion expressed early  on  in  the process, that  Malvern is not  a town, and that Great  Malvern is. Rather than invite an edit war, I  acquiesced and changed the intro  to  be vague to  appeal  to  all school of opinion. However, my summer meeting  with  the town clerk, and subsequent  research  of government  bills and acts concerning  civil parishes and town councils has now provided undeniable proof that  Malvern, and not  Great Malvern, is a town, and is indeed the town. In order to  substantiate this, I  have now reworded the intro again, and provided references to  the government  sources that clearly show that  Malvern is indeed a town. The article already shows that  its various wards cover the majority  (but  not  all) of the suburbs known collectively as The Malverns.--Kudpung (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable people
Julius Harrison is no longer a red link, I  have created the article. if anyone would like to proofread/copyedit it, it would be much  appreciated. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Referencing - finishing off
WotNow and I have now almost finished with the references. There are a few that are still giving me trouble:

I don't know what is - some sort of report? Does anyone have any details?

I'm guessing this is a book, but I have no idea how to interpret the (WRO, x713.093 BA 2648) part.

This one is dead. I can't find another reference citing organs outside of the UK - Nicholsons own website lists several organs at sites inside the UK (see portfolio). Once these are fixed, I think we're done. GyroMagician (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned earlier, the official Malvern local  government  site has been given a complete makeover for 210, which  has resulted in the loss of many  of the pages that  were referred to  when I  wrote the bulk  of the article. Dunno  what  to  do  about  that. Found the ref I  was looking  for for the amalgamation  of Malvern and the Malvern Link  Urban districs. Will be posting  it  shortly.--Kudpung (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Gyro: I'm guessing this is a book, but I have no idea how to interpret the (WRO, x713.093 BA 2648) part. - it's not  a book. WRO is Worcestershire Records Office, the rest  is the archive/document  number. Obviously  not  all  sources are available online - although a lot of people  re beginning to  imagine they  are ;) --Kudpung (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Over-referencing
I know Wikipedia is all about verifiable facts, but I think this article is becoming over-referenced. Have a look at the first paragraph: 2 refs that Malvern is a town, 2 to say that Malvern is governed by Malvern town Council, and 4 for the merger of Malvern Link. Can we all try to be a bit more selective - if you have a choice of several refs, put in the most relevant/helpful one, two at most. If you find a better ref, there is nothing wrong with replacing the original, rather than just adding an extra one. Remember, there are no extra points for having lots of refs - only for being clear and concise. GyroMagician (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's my fault - there have been issues in  the past (without  edit wars) where some contributors have strongly  contended that  these things were not  factual in  spite of the referenced facts, so  I  tend  to  go  OTT when I find additional references that  prove the facts over and over again. However, I  wholeheartedly  agree that  the object  is not  to  reference every  single sentence in  a Wikipedia article, and I  already  cut  down on  the five castle refs.  I'll select  what  I  think is/are the best, and hope that  every one agree with  my  choice :)--Kudpung (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed a bunch of superfluous refs, but now there are a lot of red warnings shown on the page. I sure don't  know how to  fix that -  usually  when I  remove an inline ref, it's gone. Can somebody  do  a quick  fix please.--Kudpung (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks as if I've figured out how to remove them.--Kudpung (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we all get a bit carried away with the 'hunt'. It looks much better now though, thanks. GyroMagician (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes - sorry about about the edit  conflicts. Shows how keen we all are (three authors in  three different  time zones) to  get  all  the fixes done :)  I've since had a look  at  the Malvern water article's  refs and I  guess I'll slowly come round to  your way  of  thinking. Just  gimme time!--Kudpung (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus
Can we soon reach  a consensus as to  whether we consider the article ready  to ask  Dana to  have another look?--Kudpung (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's as ready as it'll ever be - I'm done for now. GyroMagician (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. I can't find anything else that needs doing, although of course, all WP articles are always a work in  progress.--Kudpung (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur I've done some detailed review up to about the Governance section, by which time I was being continually distracted. So apart from adding a citation for employment demographics, I've only skimmed the remainder of the article. However, others have been through those sections in more detail, so I would agree with flagging Dana.Wotnow (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

Referencing Howto
The referencing syntax used is this article has changed. The new format attempts to keep the reference detail out of the body text, making it more readable while you edit. That's the idea, at least.

So how does it work? It's quite simple. In the body text (i.e. where you want the reference number to appear), add where myRefName is any name you want to use for your reference. It doesn't appear anywhere on the finished page, it's only a name. You can add any number of these, if you want to refer to the same reference multiple times. Then at the bottom of the page, in the reference list, add the following:

where STANDARD CITE TEMPLATE is any of these. Cite templates are much more detailed than simple ref tags, and encourage better reference keeping.

Have a look at the article source to see some examples of how it works. Remember, this is Wikipedia, so don't worry about breaking things - someone will fix it quickly if you do. But if you're still not happy, just add an old-style

and we'll convert it to the new form. But give it a try - you might like it :-)

Finally, thanks to Wotnow for introducing me to this markup style, and for converting a large part of this page! GyroMagician (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph
Going back in time, to before my first edit on the article (I think - May 2009), the opening paragraph used to read:


 * Malvern is a town and civil parish in Worcestershire, England. It includes the settlements of Great Malvern, Barnards Green, Malvern Link (with  Link Top), Malvern Wells, West Malvern, Little Malvern and North Malvern. Most of these settlements are separated by tracts of open common land. The civil parish has a population of 28,749 (2001 census). Great Malvern on the eastern flank of the Malvern Hills is considered the centre.

I think this is actually much clearer, and more recognisable to me as a description of Malvern, than what we currently have. It captures that Malvern is actually a group of places, most with Malvern in their name, while being very simple. The opening paragraph is meant to give a flavour, rather than lots of fine detail. It should be possible to read only the first paragraph, close the page, and know something about the page topic. Before I revert it, and because I don't really follow the differences between urban areas, parishes, towns, etc., I thought I would start a discussion. The details of Malvern Link merging with...whatever it merged with...certainly belong in the Governance section. Could somebody reword the above to make it accurate, but keep the simple spirit?

While I'm here, how would anyone feel about renaming 'Town Centre' to 'Great Malvern'? It seems more accurate. Not doing so would seem to be trying to fit the town into a mould, rather than describing it as-is. GyroMagician (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have avoided getting much involved in this, because I live at the other end of the county and am not fully familiar with the area. However this paragraph appears to be inaccurate, since several of the places named are distinct civil parishes. I would suggest that the article should concentrate on the area for which the town council is responsible. However the lead might say that I would suggest something along the lines of the latter, unless this is intended to become a paretn article to those for the otehr parishes. You might say that the Town centre is at [or in] Great Malvern. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * the town extends along the side of the Malvern Hills, so that settlements of Malvern Wells, West Malvern, (etc) are contiguous.  OR
 * Malvern is a town in Worcestershire ... Most of the town is in the civil parish of Malvern (which has a town council), including North Malvern and Malvern Link, but the town extends into the adjoining parishes of Malvern Wells, West Malvern, and Little Malvern. This article is mainly concerned only with the civil parish of Malvern.


 * Although I  obviously don't  claim ownership to  this article, I  have gone to  extreme lengths to word that  intro as carefully  as possible, and mainly  just to prove to  one particular editor, while avoiding edit war and WP:CIVIL, what  Malvern is all about-  and precisely  to  clarify  the fact that  Malvern is NOT  a collection of towns, that  Malvern IS a town, that  former villages and towns have been absorbed into  the civil parish of Malvern, and that  the civil  parish of Malvern is large enough to be sub divided into  wards. An intro  is expected to  cover the main ponts of an article, almost as a short  stand-alone article in its own right; Malvern is a relatively  long article and therefore its intro is designed to cover this requirement. Any  further changes that  are clearly  improvements and that will not compromise the article's GA status if it  passes, can probably  best be done later, with  more debate,  and with  less sense of urgency. Finally, the article is under the final stages of a GA review, we only  have one shot  at  this,  and we have been asked to  stop any  edits other than minor technical issues until the articl has either passed or failed. Please see Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire/GA1, there a re only  two issues to  be addressed and I  am  working onthem now, and they  don't  concern the intro.--Kudpung (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * At the risk of ruffling  the reviewer's feathers, because she wants to  get  this finished with  a minimum  of disruption, I  have slightly  reworded the intro to incorporate some of Peter's suggestions. The example he cited was still not  entirely  accurate (civil  parishes vs. suburbs/settlements), and also  contained weasel words, which  was oneof the reasons I  originally  changed it.  IMHO, the lead section  now has a perfect  length and scope  (WP:LEAD) to  match the article.--Kudpung (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, Kudpung has convinced me this is not the right time to start rehashing the intro. Let's see the outcome of the GA review - I'll stop editing until that's done. GyroMagician (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added a capnote pointing to the dabpage (though I am not sure I have got it quite perfect). I have added the other places (and more) to the dabpage Malvern.  Some one might like to check I have got this right.  I think the lead is now best left alone.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)