Talk:Poundbury

YouTube
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 18:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Bolding
The bold font under the gallery images, is it necessary? Wikipedia should not be to bold, however it looks pretty neat! any other opinions? FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  17:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is wrong and unnecessary to use it here. The WP:MOS only mentions bold face for the page title in first sentence. For the sake of uniformity, style should be left to the style sheet (per WP:MOSCOLOR), or perhaps the gallery template. I will therefore delete it. Derek Andrews (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
The criticism of the plan for not using local materials is in fact not part of the plan, but should be a separate section headed Criticism that then voices critical or opposing views. Further, such comments should be documented as substantial criticism rather than a Wikipedia member voicing their opinion. There may be perfectly good reasons why materials were sourced other than locally, especially in the context of time. As the sustainability movement has grown, recently and rapidly, its values have evolved as well. These sorts of opinion needs to be set out in some proper external forum - not Wikipedia, and then only if it generates enough traction to merit documentation in an encyclopaedia, cite it here.

I put this as a talking point rather than change it, as I don't have the time to log in, do the proper research and make the changes right now.

This comment is released into the public domain, and should stand on its own merits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.92.101 (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Governance
Do we know anything about Poundbury on a municipal level? Is it a civil parish on its own, or is it attached to Dorchester? Does it have a mayor or similar?

Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Poundbury is still considered to be part of Dorchester Town for all local government purposes: Dorchester Town Council and West Dorset District Council. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Poundbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20131110135652/http://bettercities.net/article/20-poundbury-winning-converts-20839 to http://bettercities.net/article/20-poundbury-winning-converts-20839

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyone got "Learning from Poundbury"?
There is a citation in the article to a paper with this title. I cannot find it anywhere online. It makes one of the key points about the failure of Poundsbury to reduce reliance on cars. Can anyone please share it here? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Can't find the publication, but maybe you could contact the lead author? https://www.brookes.ac.uk/templates/pages/staff.aspx?uid=p0054496 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.32.122.37 (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Praise and criticism
I cannot see why this summing-up of the praise and criticism of Poundbury has been deleted from the lede…


 * Poundbury has been praised for reviving the low-rise streetscape built to the human scale, and for echoing traditional local design features. But it has not reduced car use, as originally intended, and critics have described it as artificially nostalgic.

…in favour of this bland and obvious statement that tells us nothing:


 * The project has drawn a varied reception from architects, town planners and journalists. Valetude (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any comments, I replaced the earlier version today. Valetude (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I transferred the cites and the superfluous request 'citation needed' beside the statement in the lede Poundbury has been praised for reviving the low-rise streetscape built to the human scale. But someone has reverted this. Cites belong in the main article, and should not compromise the simplicity which is the essence of a good lede. Valetude (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I added the new citations in response to the pointless 'citation needed' another editor added less than 24 hours after you made your edit, I agree that it is better to move them to the proper section. Herrikez (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Transport
New section needed. S C Cheese (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)