Talk:Wetherby Town Hall

Unconstructive edits
I must complain about the reverting of this page, including my edits, which I do not in any way consider unconstructive. The changes that were applied by were constructive in that they sorted out the references which as they stand are non-standard and difficult to follow. Why revert out to an old version and not just build on what is there? Keith D (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have reverted this page to a version I wrote in plain English with sensible references. The previous version did not make sense. Esemgee (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I revised the article based on its poor English, too many headings (all part of the building's history), muddled incomprehensible section on the Chapel (did you even understand what it really was?), too many pictures, unnecessary See also section, poor/incomprehensible references, and inconsequential information not suited to an encyclopedia. I copyedited it so it could be understood by anyone, added standard references and another user improved them. Mtaylor848 removed the references we added a second time along with a section labelled Structure which was referenced from a very reliable source and removed important links, How can I not regard it as vandalism? Perhaps Mtaylor848 should provide a "constructive break down" of how I have 'vandalized' it. Editors are supposed to read a source and then rewrite it in their own words not add what's on the page in some sort of plagiaried version. I can access the book but I shall have to wait until I can visit Leeds Library and if more inconsequential drivel is added I will remove it.Esemgee (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The headings were necessary to allow for breaks in the pages text, they may have related to the buildings history. The section on the chapel was concise, please if you take issue with it then point out exactly what you think was wrong with it rather than giving a blunt opinion on it such as it was 'poor' or 'muddled'. If you wish to point out exactly where my text has deviated from the source, please do, until you can do so it seems you are pissing in the wind on this issue. Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed the gallery as you suggested which doesn't seem overly necessary, also I have removed a picture which was taken later than the subtext suggested. So far all the images are of the front elevation, perhaps one of the rear should be worked into the article (discuss?) Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Is this the section you refer to as the chapel? 'Adjacent to the old town hall was the Market Place Chapel, a chapel of ease to the parish church in Spofforth, built in 1763. It was damaged in a fire in 1823 and became increasingly dilapidated.[2]'

If so I fair to see any issues. Please expand. Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Mtaylor848 will "fair" (do you mean fail?) to see any issues with the text about the chapel because I wrote that text after reading the book and copyediting your garbled offering, I am referring to your garbled text from 19 February. One line paragraphs with headings are not needed. Multiple images showing the town hall front are not needed BUT standard references are. I have reinstated them yet again. I don't think you understand how to reference from books so stop undoing them. Esemgee (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * With respect I have a greater understanding of how to do so then you seemingly do. You have not offered any evidence of where the source deviates from what is written here, nor have you explained which parts are garbled and why.  I have removed the images in question, but please justify your edits first, removing content enmasse because you don't see it as notable (with no explanation as to why it isn't) or removing content because you claim it is not supported by the book in question (without being able to point out any deviation from the source) isn't really helping anyone's cause.  As I say, I'll gladly have discourse over the development of this page with you, but I will revert any changes you make that remove significant blocks of content from the page without prior justification.  As yet, your justification has been no more than a vague rhetoric.  Regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"With respect" if you search the history you will see it is now substantially as I rewrote it from your rambling prose and now has standard references. Please bear in mind not everything that appears in the local press is suitable for inclusion or even I might have my own article. Esemgee (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

History subheading justification
Being as this seems to becoming a moot point, I shall explain my justification for the four headings in the history section. If you wish to contend this then please invite a third party reviewer to settle this dispute as in line with Wikipedia guidelines.

The four sections each represent the four main eras in the buildings history

1. The Old Town Hall - Significant because it is a distinct period of time defined by the existence of the former structure

2. The New Town Hall - The second significant period in the buildings history

3. Replacement - It's replacement for civic roles I would define as its third main era as it's function had dramatically changed from it's intended use. Moreover this is evidenced by the existence of the council offices close by.

4. Recent history - Current day and recent events, not necessarily relating to the prior eras.

Regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

3 and 4 are history. The article is too short for multiple headings. Esemgee (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)