Talk:Stow-on-the-Wold/Archive 1

Trivia
I've reinstated the trivia section which was deleted by 86.139.100.200 with no edit summary. I know it's not flattering to Stow, but it happened. Flup 12:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The AA Gill reference may as you say not be flattering but what you forget to say is that it is just one journalist's misguided opinion - it may have happened but lots of things happen and they don't all end up on wikipedia so why does this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.147.107.188 (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC).


 * 'Misguided' would be a point of view and therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia. The comment was made by a well-known journalist and received considerable publicity.  I believe it is notable, and the text of the trivia section has a neutral point of view.  If you believe that there is a reason for its removal based on Wikipedia guidelines, then please say so. Flup 14:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, Gill's assesment of Stow is point of view the Trivia section uses a neutral POV but the relevance of Gill's assesment of the town is not relevant to the town itself - it would be relevant in Gill's entry on wikipedia. This hasn't been a widely held view amongst journalists and therefore could be said to be the opinion of a small minority of people. Therefore it is not relevant for wikipedia (86.143.76.197 14:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC))


 * A good point. I don't have enough experience with Wikipedia to comment, so I've opened a case with the informal Mediation Cabal and asked them to give us the benefit of their wider experience (Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-01_Stow-on-the-Wold). Flup 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The mediators advised me that WP:3O is a better solution, so I've listed the dispute there. Flup 09:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
I read the trivia section, then followed the link to the A A Gill article and thought about it awhile. It seems to me that it's actually amusing: first one sees the rather unlikely trivia item, then if one follows up one finds that the remark was very probably not at all true, merely an unpleasant reflection of the journalist's own personality.

The entry will benefit from a very small edit characterising Gill, as indeed his article does, along the lines of "the famously abrasive journalist A A Gill" or something of that sort, to make the nature of the source of the obloquy clear at the outset. — Athænara  ✉  11:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I like this solution a lot. I won't make the change until the other user has has a chance to put their opinion, though.  Thanks!  Flup 11:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No comments after a week, so I'll make the change as suggested. --Flup 14:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad it turned out well.  — Æ.   ✉  06:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Transport links - retention/deletion?
The inclusion of this section makes the article read, once again, like a tourism brochure rather than a Wikipedia article. Unless there is a strong case for it's retention I will remove this non-notable section. Lame Name (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It is normal for town articles to include transport infrastructure, past and present. This often has more to do with a places reason for existance and its character than with tourism. --Charles (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither Moreton-in-Marsh or Bourton-on-the-Water include a transport infrastructure section. There is scope for expanding the lead section "..the convergence of a number of major roads through the Cotswolds, including the Fosse Way (A429)" to include some other converging roads, and the history section could explain the historical relevance (back to the Salt roads?) but a separate section for transport does not add to the article as a whole and is not particularly notable by itself. Lame Name (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Alleyways usage
There is a good case for the alleyways providing access to buildings built behind the extant buildings as the town expanded. Anyone have a reliable source for either point of view? Lame Name (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of Stow
There is an interesting discussion on the significance of the word Stow at Talk:Stow,_Lincolnshire --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)