Talk:Stratford-upon-Avon

Edit in Trivia
I am not sure how to remove the [edit] buttons on the page, but there are several in the trivia section that should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K28921 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Merger proposed: Henley Street
Since the Henley Street article is not too long, and may not be notable in itself, it might be best to merge it here.

Proposed as part of the Notability Wikiproject --B. Wolterding 15:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - they should be merged. Alternatively, there should be a link from this article to Henley Street. Drc79 16:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say definitely merge. Henley Street does not merit its own article. AlexOUK 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I merged the text into here. The section should be streamlined a bit, maybe, but I leave this to others. --B. Wolterding 08:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh?
"the District of Stratford-on-Avon (which uses the term "on" to ensure people realise that it is a much wider area than just the town of Stratford-upon-Avon)" - what evidence is there that this (somewhat odd) reasoning is actually the one the district uses? There's no reference. Loganberry (Talk) 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the one that was on Stratford-on-Avon (district). --Espoo (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Notable" or "Trivia"?
The section "Notable residents" although not called a trivia section basically is one, and should probably be deleted per WP:TRIVIA.-- Writtenonsand (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Quite a few town articles in the UK have notable residents sections e.g. Taunton. Some, like Bolton have even separated the list out e.g. List of people from Bolton. However I do agree that the current section is too long winded and should be more of a bulleted list. If people want more info on the person they can click the wikilink. --TimTay (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Section is perfectly valid per common practice, and lists, whether standalone or within articles, should always contain info and context about the items they contain.  Dei z  talk 09:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The guidelines at WP:UKCITIES includes a "Notable people" section so it is perfectly valid to have this section, though a list is to be discouraged and the section should be re-written in prose. Keith D (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! :-) However, the info on the famous people listed in this article drags it IMHO perilously close at times to being "Triva about famous people from Stratford-upon-Avon." Perhaps some rewrite to weed out the more egregious trivialities, gushing, and "this bit reads like a personal essay"? Thanks to all -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD - go for it! --TimTay (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Henley Street
Methinks the first par of this subsection needs a good seeing-to. I read it in passing and saw some apparent errors of syntax and logic, eg, re dates. I have to leave it to someone with a good handle on the history, etc. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm! No takers after 2 months? OK, I've had a go at fixing it myself. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Administration
The third paragraph at the top of the article deals (at excessive length for its position) with the ins and outs of local government--not really very notable or interesting to most readers. My proposal is to transpose the whole paragraph to a place lower down, eg, to a section "Administration" just ahead of "Education". Any objections? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Which Adjectival Form is correct?
I would appreciate an addition to this page which clarifies which adjectival form of residents is correct: "Statfordians" or "Stratford-on-Avonians". I have seen both. Would a Stratfordian refer to someone who lives in the city whereas a Stratford-on-Avonian refers to someone who lives in the surrounding areas? Thank you! This question ignited a heated debate in my British Literature class the other day. Ddperk80 (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Theatre section is confusing
It would be helpful if the Theatre section could be edited by someone with good knowledge of the present-day Royal Shakespeare Theatre. Information in the separate Wikipedia article on the Royal Shakespeare Theatre could be used to help reorganize, update, and edit this section to make it more comprehensible. The section is haphazardly organized and confusing to a reader like myself who has some, but not much, familiarity with the town and the theatre. Thank you.ElsaObuchowski (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC) ElsaObuchowski (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Layout
Hi all. I've attempted to improve the layout of the page, starting with the issues raised by ElsaObuchowski above. I hope this has been of benefit to the article - I think it has as multiple issues were apparent. I think information has been added over time in good faith but has become jumbled, with no ongoing edits to rectify it. In the Theatre section, there was repetition about when the RST was built. The information regarding the closure and reopening of the Swan Theatre was also unclear. There were also visitor attractions listed in the Theatre section which aren't connected to the Theatre. As a result, I created two new sections - 'Other Shakespeare attractions' and 'Other attractions' to improve the clarity regarding sites of interest within the town. I've also added a Historic Spine section.

Please take a look. --LegereScire (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Layout - culture and places of interest
Hi all. In line with good articles and featured articles, I have added a 'culture' section and placed key streets in a 'places of interest' section. EDIT - Culture, Streets and Other attractions as sections. This will allow: an expansion of cultural locations in Stratford which aren't necessarily the main attractions, such as smaller theatres and art galleries. Additionally, it will stop the list of attractions just getting bigger and bigger, without any order. I think this will improve the page layout, but if you aren't happy with this, please do say so. Many thanks, --LegereScire (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stratford-upon-Avon. 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://web.archive.org/web/20120606224957/http://www.stratford.gov.uk/community/ to http://www.stratford.gov.uk/community/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104020507/http://www.stratford.gov.uk/localplan/ELECTRONIC/Section7.pdf to http://www.stratford.gov.uk/localplan/ELECTRONIC/Section7.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160126131346/http://www.stratford-herald.com/31560-celebration-brings-down-curtain-at-courtyard.html to http://www.stratford-herald.com/31560-celebration-brings-down-curtain-at-courtyard.html

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) 23:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I have a question regarding one of the sources
Is the 6th source(the one linking to http://www.localhistories.org/stratford.html) a credible source? Deskslammed (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Tallies with current source 43 which backs it up on the 'b' usage. the webarchive of www.stratford.gov.uk/localplan/ELECTRONIC/Section7.pdf .  I'd note the former doesn't have a webarchive while the latter cite might do with embellishment.  Per [www.localhistories.org/mybiog.html] it is self proclaimed credible but there is a possibility the cite was used to promote the site and because of the site's nature I might prefer to lose it for that reason.  One could use 43 instead.05:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not a shoppers' guide
Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I've removed all the directory content: lists of stores in the shopping centres, enumeration of which supermarket chains were in town as of the last update, etc. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

images
User talk:Foxglovesi is edit warring to include their spammy image with incorrect license details and website address in the file name. The image is not required as we already have a perfectly good image below it. Theroadislong (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally inappropriate and plainly advertising. You were quite right to remove it. KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * re-uploaded the image on the right without the watermark, and I agree with their rationale that minus the watermark, it improves the article by showing the observation tower. (They appear not to have filled in the field for when the photo was taken, but the EXIF data gives early September.) I see it's been re-reverted by numerous people, but I don't think this is now spam (and if the deletion discussion on Commons closes as keep, I intend to move it to a spam-free filename if no one else does). There needs to be discussion first, but I advocate reinstating this one. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Aside from the watermark and the advertising link in the file name, don’t we still have the embedded link advertising in the Description line and in the Author/editor name? As well as the attempts to upload watermarked images on other article pages. I know we AGF but, given their actions to date, is building the encyclopaedia, or advertising their business, the likeliest motivation for this user? KJP1 (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits
Just to note here I have attempted to alter (not entirely erase) USER:Robin75aw's recent edits as they are contrary to various style guidelines such as WP:PARAGRAPH and WP:STACKING and MOS:IMAGELOCATION, and MOS:OVERLINK, in order to make the article more compliant with these guidelines. This seems to be part of a pattern of behaviour of ignoring these guidelines on page after page, despite my and other users drawing attention and linking to them in edit summaries and on their talk page. Perhaps some dispute resolution is in order here. G-13114 (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Just to get the record straight here that USER:G-13114 recent reverts to my edits over the past 24 hours break the fundamental Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:VANDAL and WP:EDIT WARRING. I have edited this page in order to bring the structure, layout and content of the article to bring it into the standards that a reader of a Wikipedia article would expect as a basic prerequisite. As for image location they are on the right hand side in order to follow consistency throughout the article. Where there may be some instances of overlinking, this is on the whole only for the benefit of the end user after all links are the lifeblood of Wikipedia.  Why is it that I have edited 100's of pages of Wikipedia articles and nobody except the person concerned has reverted my work and not even had the basic decency to discuss this with me in any way whatsoever.  I have a long list of articles where G-13114 has shown discrimination to my work throughout the past two months. G-13114, asks for some dispute resolution, well perhaps some basic courtesy and consideration of what the reader would like is in order too. Robin75aw (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The standards are set out in the policies and guidelines which I just linked, which you constantly disregard. I have generally sought to amend rather than revert articles, but sometimes there has been so much wrong, that reverting is the only way to fix it. But accusing me of vandalism is frankly absurd. I must admit, I am not the most communicative of editors, but I have always tried to guide you to the relevant policy in my edit summaries. I note that others have raised similar issues with you on your talk page. G-13114 (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I am afraid that their are a number of contradictions to the guidelines in the links that you have attached.  For example, (1), MOS:IMAGELOCATION states the following "Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement. Left-aligned images may disturb the layout of bulleted lists and similar structures that depend on visual uniformity" and yet some of the images are still located on the left hand side. (2), WP:STACKING "One of the problems many users of floating pictures hit is that multiple pictures sometimes stack up vertically, particularly with large screens and wide images." None of the images that I have amended are wide.  In this article I have located the images in the relevant sections. I admit this may not have been the case in previous articles and where so thank for making the subsequent necessary changes. (3), WP:PAPRGRAPH states "Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. Paragraphs should deal with a particular point or idea. All the sentences within a paragraph should revolve around the same topic. When the topic changes, a new paragraph should be started. Overly long paragraphs should be split up, as long as the cousin paragraphs keep the idea in focus." There may be an area of subjectivity here however and this is where common sense applies.  Never have I altered paragraphs to just one sentence or one or two lines where the layout looks frankly unprofessional.  However, I sure we both agree that any paragraph overly too long i.e. more than 10 lines is equally arduous to read.  As a rule of thumb, I tend to space my paragraphs to between 5 to 10 lines where appropriate, ideally 6 to 8 lines.  Now, the area where I can improve on is overlinking, and yes others on the whole have been constructive in this area.  But as I said above that links are the lifeblood of wikipedia and in reason I will continue to add links where reasonable and appropriate. Robin75aw (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Paragraphs are intended to divide the text by topic, not according to arbitrary lengths, if you look at several online grammar guides, such as these  , there is a consensus that paragraphs should consist of information related to a single central topic, idea, or theme, and if the topic or theme changes, then there should be a new paragraph (i.e. you don't bunch random unrelated topics in the same paragraph). Second, the image guide says images should be located in the section they are relevant to. I have seen you stack images atop each other in fairly random locations, and left aligned images are ok in some cases where there is a need to put an image opposite an infobox, or to avoid stacking. G-13114 (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)