Talk:Workington/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Workington? Capital of West Cumbria???

The jam capital of Cumbria, maybe! Come on, marra, this is supposed to be a serious encyclopaedia!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.186.185.38 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2004 (UTC)

Carlisle

I thought the above was the "capital" of Cumbria, seen as its the only city and it's got loads more stuff than Workington or anywhere else, including 2 seperate cinema complexes, 2 colleges (one art, one Tech) a shopping centre (a PROPER one BTW, not just one like Dunmail Park) and numerous other shops and amenities. Selphie 11:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) **

Info

This was in the main text: however it relates to Kendal, Westmorland.

The Kendal "Boke of Recorde" contains several references to the pastimes of Westmerians from two to three centuries ago. On one occasion it was ordered by the Corporation "That whosoever do play at the football in the street and break any windows, shall forfeit upon view thereof by the Mayor or one of the Aldermen in the ward where the fault is committed the sum of 12d. for every time every party, and 3s. 4d. for every window by the same broken, and to be committed till it be paid, the constable looke to it to present it presently at every Court day." That knur and spell, the game so popular still in Yorkshire, was once a favourite pastime in Kendal is attested by the following entry, dated April, 1657: "It is ordered by the Court that all such persons, inhabitants within this borough, above the age of twelve years, that hereafter shall play in the streets at a game commonly called Kattstick and Bullvett shall forfeit and incur the penalty of 12d. for every offence, to be levied of their goods, and where they have no goods to be imprisoned two hours." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjccumbria (talk • contribs) 22:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This article says buggar all about Workington as a town and history. I'm sure this article wasn't always like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.4.34 (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

no it wasn't, a previous version existed but was scaled down for some reason. that's why i want to try my best to improve this article with the concern hanging around the introduction, history, economy and regeneration (which was my work, which i intend to rename or merge into economy which would probably be a better bet). references are also needed, so i have found as many as i could. Kilnburn (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What happened to all the good stuff?

seems like the last edit of this page has taken all the useful info out and just left a snippet in about uppies and downies! seems like the last revision - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workington&oldid=18401315 was fine but has been butchered. what's going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny boy27 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed

Can I suggest reverting to the previous version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.51.98 (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

well, i would like to do this for you, but first of all, i would want to put references in there. after having a little look, the previous version definitely looks much better Kilnburn (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Workington page is becoming more like History of Workington

I am relatively new to wiki and appreciate the help in tidying what I insert.

The page is becoming 'history heavy'. I am working on a History of Workington page, to shift material to... is that the way to proceed?

(Andy V Byers (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

Jam eater

Just undid 'jam eaters' entry by Weir 79. Please watch out for similar vandalism. (82.132.139.32 (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

Population

Any citations on the population? Seems different every time I look here, it was about 45,000 last time I looked, now it's 19,000. Falkybassist (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the 19,000 must have been added by someone thinking the sentence is about Workington's population. But it seems to read as if it is related to the size of Allerdale Borough. Not a clearly worded or relevant sentence. But Allerdale includes Maryport, Cockermouth, Keswick, Wigton as well as Workington. That would surely push it over that 45,000. Andy V Byers (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Allerdale says the population was 93,492 in the 2001 census. Later estimates are 94,500 in 2008[1] and 95,000 in 2009[2]. "The resident population in Workington totalled 19,884 as of the 2001 census"[3](proprietary format), or perhaps 21,514[4]. "The Workington footprint covers the following wards: Clifton, Moorclose, Moss Bay, St. Michael's, St. John's, Seaton and Stainburn ... The total population in the Workington area is approximately 27,975"[5]. (I'm not sure whether the footprint is the same as the area.) Hope that helps. Certes (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Size of the article (split section?)

Is it really necessary for an article about a town the size of Workington to be almost as long as the article about the British capital. Obviously someone has put a lot of work into this, but the history section particularly is verging on ridiculous. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We could start by trimming the name section. The Scrabble picture is amusing original research and looks great in its original home but is hardly encyclopaedic. The modern spellings are at best dialect forms; many read like abbreviations painted on inbound roads or how someone mispronounced the word one day. The sole reference is to another wiki which may be perfectly correct but is not a reliable source. Suitably pruned, this can become one of the best town articles in Wikipedia, but quality is better than quantity. Certes (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
IMO, the size of the article vis-a-vis London is irrelevant; if it's notable, then record it. Also, London has separate articles for each of the 32 boroughs and several other aspects, so "London" has much more wordage than this one. That said, some pruning is possible here.
W's history is long and interesting, but it's padded out with extraneous info which resides elsewhere; example: "The Vikings, or Norsemen, sailed over most of the North Atlantic, reaching south to North Africa and east to Russia, Constantinople and the Middle East, as looters, traders, colonists, and mercenaries. Vikings under Leif Eriksson, heir to Erik the Red, reached North America. The Norsemen or Northmen were also known as Dene (Danes) by the Anglo-Saxons." - this is wholly unnecessary as it should be covered elsewhere, and a wikilink would suffice. The same applies to much of the detail on the Scottish Wars - keep it to what's immediately relevant to W, the rest lies elsewhere. In general, the phrasing, while elegant, borders on verbose and the same info could be presented more concisely. A town with such a rich history wight be worth a separate "History of Workington" article.
In other areas, expansion is desirable. The list of schools in the education section is a grey mass of type, better presented as a table or, perhaps as a separate article along the lines of, say, Primary schools in Dacorum. The description of the rise and fall of the steel industry is interesting (I learnt something!), albeit with yet more padding, but what about the docks? The list of W's names is another grey mass, but it is relevant, and the Scrabble pic is more relevant than some bits now in History.
I've rated the article for WPCITIES and added a "todo" list. All IMO, of course. My sympathy to all affected by the floods. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Folks' point about London. London is as short as Workington only because it delegates most content to 20 Main article: sub-pages. Some of those even overflow into a tree of further sub-pages: Transport in London → London Underground → History of the London Underground → Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways... Certes (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with almost everything you've said guys... even the scrabble image.

It would be wonderful to split off and have a History of Workington, with a further split for Coal. Iron and Steel, Ship Building, Education... but it is the actual editing and gentle 'policing' of the daughter pages that concerns me. We only have a few contributors (editors/policemen)...

So, let's create the History of Workington page and see how it goes.

More experienced 'hands' may wish to take the lead in creating such a page.

Thanks for all you help and advice... so let's do it!

PS: Seems we have multiple [edit] [edit] [edit] appearing under Floods - Dock Bridge... I can't seem to get rid of it. Tried retyping and no luck. (Andy V Byers (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

All of the 105 'names' for Workington do have authenticated sources to be found through the Workington.wikia link. Whether abbreviations or dialect they do appear in on line articles and have assisted historical research. Listing all 105 separate references and hyperlinks would have really padded our Workington page...  :-D))

(Andy V Byers (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

The multiple [edit]s are for the subsections (====h4====) which I added within Road and foot bridges section (===h3===). Sorry if I've messed things up here. There's one [edit] per header, just as there should be, but some of them appear much too low on the page. I think this may be because the Road and foot bridges section itself (not its subsections) includes several images and runs on beside the subsections, and the wiki software defers the [edit] for the next heading until the previous one has finished. The [edit]s appear level with the top of the last image to me, but this may vary with browser, screen width, skin, etc. Moving the images to the subsections is one solution I'd try (were I not about to leave for work), or just dewikify back to the subheader syntax. Certes (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I definitely agree that seperate articles for certain topics would be much more appropriate and revent this mass of text spreading any further. I do however also believe that a lot of the information could be trimed, a lot of the history section talks about a much broader area besides Workington, and looking through it myself it appears that someone has tried to link Workington to as many events in British history as possible. It is like writing a 200 word section about the War in Afghanistan and how it has affected the town, even if only two locals are directly involved. I may be babbling a bit here, but this is my opinion. Thanks. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree in some parts with you Stevvvv4444. But feel you miss the point... we haven't even mentioned our Workington soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan! ... That is our fault not yours... History IS the linking of events with YOURSELF and YOUR TOWN... or are we in la la land?
If Wikipedia is significant it records significant events in the opinion of the inhabitants of the settlement (with appropriate citations :-D)... if not, it is absolutely crap! then let us select and delete everything. Thanks for the help(Andy V Byers (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC))
I've revised the layout of the flood section using {{col-begin}} and friends. For me, this fixes the [edit] [edit] problem and looks at least as good as the previous version. If the new layout appears terrible in your browser or screen size, please revert or complain here. Certes (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good (Andy V Byers (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

Just come across this page. The history section has a lot of extraneous information. For example: Philip II of Spain had been co-monarch of England until the death of his wife Mary I in 1558. A devout Roman Catholic, he considered the Protestant Elizabeth a heretic and illegitimate ruler of England. He supported plots to have her overthrown in favour of her Catholic cousin Mary, Queen of Scots. England used privateers to great effect and suffered much from other nations' privateering and piracy. - none of this relates to Workington directly. This is the reason that we have wiki-links, to allow people to explore contextual information if they want, without repeating ourselves.
The three paragraphs on Scottish pirates and Mary QoS could easily be cut down by using links to say, English Reformation During the Catholic-Anglican conflicts of the the English Reformation, Workington was an important site as a port town near the English border Scotland, which itself was torn between Protestant and Catholic factions. In 1556, Scottish pirates attacked the ship 'Samuel' after it left Workington carrying ores mined near Keswick... [the long quote]... In 1558, Mary, Queen of Scots, the cousin of English monarch Elizabeth I, was forced to flee Scotland following a coup. She spent her first night in England as an honoured guest at Workington Hall. On 18 May 1568, Mary was escorted to Carlisle Castle after spending a day at Cockermouth. That's a rough summary and my knowledge of the topic isn't the best, but you get the idea.
Agree it should be pruned down.
The floods section is also not brilliant at the moment, but I suggest that that will tidy itself up over time. If you want to improve the article - because some of it is very good and deeply written - then I'd suggest going to Wikipedia:Peer review and getting some advice. Pretty Green (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Good advice. Folks at 137 (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This strikes me as an article that, if tided, would probably be well on its way to Good Article status and that if you had one or two editors willing to work on it could move towards featured article level. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I like the way the chat is going... Agree the Floods section should probably find a home in flooding related to the whole River Derwent Valley on River Derwent, Cumbria. Therefore linking with flooding in Keswick, Cockermouth etc and include the downed bridges. Environment Agency revising their Historic flooding in the Derwent Valley report as we talk. Suggest we wait a few weeks to shift the material as many related issues are arising... especially Climate Change conference in Copenhagen... I need advice on use of youtube videos of the Workington flooding to the page as some are excellent sources.

Thanks for your interest in Workington page and possibility of creating History of Workington page. (Andy V Byers (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)):-D)

With the attention to the bridges following recent events, they could be split off into a separate article - Bridges in Workington. Each bridge can be fully described, its history given, and there will be more room to show the pictures without ending up with a thin column of text down the middle of the page. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I vote for splitting the history section in a new article called 'History of Workington' as it stands now, leaving the content pretty much as it is with a short precise kept in the main article. People can then consider in a month or two whether to 'reduce' it and bring it back into the main article or whether to let it stand on its own or slice it another way. I am suggesting this because clearly a lot of work has gone into the section, but right now it is getting in the way of the main content people are looking however the author may not be available to argue he position. I am happy to do the move tomorrow if there is general agreement that it would be appropriate. PeterEastern (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no rush, tomorrow would be far to soon to allow consensus to develop. Leave it a week or so to give people chance to comment. It might be worth dropping a note on the talk page of the relevant Wikiproject to give their members a chance to comment. Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
A split has been being discussed since June 2009 (see previous section on talk). Possibly tomorrow is too soon, but I would suggest that monday would be fine. No content will be lost and it is not a permanent change. Personally I can't see what is lost by moving sooner than later. I am however an newcomer to the article and am not about to force anything on anyone. PeterEastern (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree there should be no rush, the events happening now in Mill Field (temporary bridge), Temporary Rail bridge, Prince Charles' visit mean this section is news... Suggest we create the History of Workington page and beef up River Derwent (or create Derwent Valley Floods)in a few weeks time. If the Mill Field bridge is to be completed and open on Dec 5th, maybe that's a good date to ret-think timing of the split. Other important related issues such as the River Derwent as a Fortified river mouth as part of Hadrian's Wall coastal defences and being the Scotland/England border during the 10th and 13th Century can be brought together. Nice map Peter. (Andy V Byers (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)) :-D)

Image clutter

There seem to be an excessive number of images in this article. Some in the history section have little relevance to Workington and the recent stuff on bridges and floods is way over the top. This is not a news site after all.--Charles (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree completely. The picture illustrate the text and both will eventually be moved to River Derwent, Cumbria and form a section on the Flood History of the Derwent Valley. Please explain what you mean by 'over the top'. If 4 bridges are seriously damaged or 3 actually fall down it is significant issue for any town. If a new bridge is being built in a disaster area that is and will be a part of Workington. If you wish to contribute to the History of Workington section you are more than welcome. We need contributors, especially with local knowledge. Glad to have you aboard. {Andy V Byers (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)) :-D)
I am not local but our respective areas are historically linked by the Percy family and their heirs, which is why I do some editing and anti-vandalism in your area. When I said over the top it should probably have been under the bottom, as there are solid images down both sides of the text and extending well below, causing white space. Too many images make a page slow to load for people without fast broadband, which is why we have Commons for the extra photos. I have added a link to commons in the external links section. I agree this is a significant event in the town's history and I like the idea of a Flood History of the Derwent Valley which might make an article in its own right. The ability to be up to date is one of Wikipedia's strengths as long as recentism does not get out of hand. Keep up the good work.--Charles (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Recentism asks: "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?" That sounds like a suitable test to me. Certes (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Recentism thanks for the reminder(Andy V Byers (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

Use of workington.wikia.com as source

I notice that parts of this article use the website workington.wikia.com as a source. This appears to be a wiki and its use as a source therefore breaches WP:SPS. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

All is not lost. The Workington Wiki (WW) itself cites many sources acceptable to Wikipedia, so some cases where Wikipedia cites WW can be changed to point directly to the original source. I suggest adding WW as an external link, since many topics summarised in Workington are expanded in WW in more detail than would be appropriate for Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems a suitable decision. (Andy V Byers (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)}
I agree. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

One this is done, perhaps we can take the liberty of removing It needs additional references or sources for verification ({{Article issues|Refimprove}}) from the top of the article. I hope that the 131 existing citations should satisfy even the most avid reader. Certes (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The removal of the banner would be a significant milestone for the page. (Andy V Byers (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC))
There are many, many unsourced statements in the article so I think a lot more work needs to go in. I'm new to the article so maybe the sources cited support everything that's said, but it's hard to tell due to the lack of inline citations in much of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Date of Birth for notable people

Just added Ethel Fisher as a notable person. I happen to know her date of birth, (she is still very much alive!), would it be proper to put this in, or maybe just the year? John 82.12.248.184 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal information like peoples DOB should only be included if it is in the public domain, and citable. For minor notable people it is often wise to keep the DOB out of the article for privacy and identity theft reasons. As for just adding the year of birth, this would be ok in her own biography, but not here. Martin451 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, useful info. John 82.12.248.184 (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional OpenStreetMap data for the area?

I have added a map based on OpenStreetMap data to the article showing the location of the bridges, the town and the stations. If anyone knows the area or is in the area it would be great to add more detail to the town itself. If you have information to add then open OpenStreetMap at the town and press 'edit'. PeterEastern (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. It is reported on Usenet that Dock rail- and footbridge has collapsed (as opposed to being shut for safety reasons): can anyone confirm this and edit the article and map if true? One minor suggestion: if you're amending the map for other reasons, can you turn the spell checker off to remove the red underlining? Certes (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Spell check (and therefore the red underlining) now sorted on the map. Thanks for point it out.PeterEastern (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Will go to Docks today and get a GSP for the new bridge in Mill Field. Live in Workington. Will study the map in detail today ...also see how we could use it as the base for current and historical recording. (Andy V Byers (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)) :-D
Dock Bridge is still up but damaged and closed off. It has lost some support pillars but not fallen at all. The 19th century Merchant's Quay has been swept away. (Andy V Byers (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
Local fishermen say the northern section of dock bridge is condemned and needs a new bridge but let's wait for official announcement. Southern section seems OK. (Andy V Byers (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

I have added references to the Camerton bridge (which as it links with Clifton surely is part of Workington), is it possible to amend the map to include it? John 82.12.248.184 (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Portraits of monarchs

The portraits of monarchs really aren't necessary, they don't illustrate the town in anyway and their link to Workington is tenuous at best. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I pruned a lot of images before, but more should go.--Charles (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The paragraph about King Dunmail is apparently plagiarised from http://www.thewhitehavenguide.co.uk/p/v/workington-area/ I think that other text from that page also appears verbatim at several points in this article.82.132.139.86 (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Spilt: History of Workington

I came here because of the split tag, which is at this point rather old and needs to be taken care of or frankly never will. Consensus last year was to spilt the history into a new article, titled History of Workington. I'm all for this and will certainly take it on as a project. However there are a number of major issues.

One, almost all of the information currently there needs to be removed, very little of it actually relates to Workington at all. At the moment it is practically an overview of English history. Very general and irrelevant. Now having read carefully there are bits that can be used and a few interesting pieces. I plan to start mainly from scratch. Once I've gathered some information I'll know whether it is actually worth while creating a separate history article. At the moment there isn't enough information to warrent one.

There are though a few sections which could easily be split out into their own articles, such as the section of John Christian Curwen. It's practically a bio already, and it certainly has notability. This is definetly something I intend to resolve within the next few weeks. Hopefully we will have a better article if not multiple articles because of it. I plan to work in my userspace, so just leave me a note on my talk page if you want to help out. --France3470 (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made the split and started to trim and tidy, though more could should be done. Also there should be a decent summary of the history left in this main article. SilkTork *YES! 12:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Workington. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Workington. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Workington/Archive_1&oldid=1188240405"