Jump to content

Talk:Barnes, London

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

The link to BarnesSW13 is a bit funny - the link shows the site is monitoring the use of the link. Is this against wikipedia policy, is it considered advertising? Jfr26 22:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be against policy if it isn't already.. The barnes-online site isn't exactly relevant either. Despite the name, there's very little that's Barnes-specific on it - it seems to be mainly about Richmond-upon-Thames / the Richmond Park constituency and the council. Also, not sure the negative section on North Barnes at the top deserves so much prominence.. What do others think?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.22.123 (talk • contribs).

The relevant guideline here, IMHO, is WP:EL (and, I suppose, WP:NOT). To be sure, the referral tracking is wholly inappropriate in view of WP:SPAM's proscription against external link spamming, inasmuch as, in its ertswhile fashion, the link existed, we can safely infer, primarily to solicit traffic; I modified the link in order that the provenance of site hits should not be tracked. The question of whether we ought to include the link at all is a closer one. Because the site would seem to contain neutral and accurate material (even as the site ostensibly advocates that one partake of the activities there enumerated, many of those activities are non-commerical, and, in any event, certain activities, at least vis-à-vis others, are not treated tendentiously) and be a relevant web directory (as, for example, might be a link to a given Chamber of Commerce for an American city; we don't tend to look with such links with disfavor), I can abide its inclusion, even as the site does seem to exist as advertising or to promote products or services; I will understand, though, if others disagree and think the link ought to be removed straightaway. Joe 03:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted vandalism

[edit]

Have deleted the following:

The pub is noted for the very poor service and a very rude bar manager.

--Technopat 19:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that vandalism is back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.56.252 (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


That's not vandalism - it is a statement of fact and therefore is to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.176.152 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually not relevant in an encyclopaedia. In any case, such a statement about a living person needs to be backed up by reliable sources - see WP:BIO. Thanks. Kbthompson (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents

[edit]

Am increasingly concerned about that growing list of notable residents. Several issues at stake here, including lack of references, for one, and non-encyclopedic, for another. Feedback, anyone? --Technopat (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to the hard work, zeal and enthusiasm editors are showing in adding sections of long lists of notable citizens to articles, let's see if we can get some consensus going on this issue.
Among my many concerns is that article pages corresponding to big cities - New York is one that springs readily to mind, with over 19,000,000 (2008 est.) citizens - but of course we mustn't limit it to our particular ethnocentricity (pun intended) - may end up with long lists of notables far exceeding the relative importance to the article itself.
The fact that someone or another lives somewhere is really all not that important (after all, we ALL have to live somewhere) unless s/he has actually "done" something notable towards, shall we say, improving that particular place or is of some historical relevance.
Other issues at stake here include inline references, what Wikipedia is/is not, etc.

Looking forward to feedback on this one.--Technopat (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unreferenced list of notable residents

[edit]

Have removed the following un-encyclopaedic list - even if it were referenced, am not sure it should be included:

Notable residents

[edit]

Well-known people who have lived in Barnes include:

Feedback? --Technopat (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold again:

[edit]

Noteable (sic) residents

[edit]

--Technopat (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political representation

[edit]

Is the inclusion of Zac Goldsmith's candidature justified? It's hard to see what is notable about this: he is not a politician of note, not is the parliamentary seat of any particular electoral significance, for example as a key marginal. It smacks slightly of the possibility that someone has added it with the aim of giving publicity to or promoting Mr Goldsmith's candidature.

MJCHA (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is not justified. Goldsmith is of no relevance to Barnes per se, and of marginal relevance to the wider constituency since he has not run for election. But I've restored Baron Patten of Barnes to the "political representation" section since he is the local peer, and therefore has a stronger connection to the place than simply living there as do the other "famous residents".

01:04 8 February 2009 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.113.237 (talk)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barnes, London. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barnes, London. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barnes,_London&oldid=1205746671"