Talk:Bradley Stoke

The nickname 'Sadly Broke' is well known in the Bristol area and residents of Bradley Stoke. It can be considered to be an identifying feature of the development, which history recalls, was troubled by financial crisis in its early years. Therefore it is justified to include the "Sadly Broke" reference. It is a neutral statement that is not particularly offensive to any of the residents since it refers not to them but the financial difficulties of the original developers, which coincided with the late 80s property crash.

Comments please on whether you think it is valid to include this reference.

--Dunk 17:17, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dunk, the test is would you be startled to see this passage in Britannica or En Carta. I certainly would.
However, please revert because I know I can't make you understand.
Adrian Pingstone 17:30, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Who says we are trying to create an encyclopedia that is just like Britannica or En Carta. I believe the WP mandate can go far beyond that. Adding something that creates a bit of humour to an article, rather than a completely dry piece of prose, can add to the interest in the topic and should not be reverted on your principle.

The point is factually correct and non-offensive. Why should it be removed? --Dunk 17:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I support you. Although it was designed for humour and to possibly offend, it is light-hearted and forms part of the (short) history of the area. I don't see any obection to it. WP is different to "Britannica" or "En Carta" from the fact it is a community, and should be editable by all, I feel to compare it to such encyclopedic forms is unfair, WP:What Wikipedia is not states how it is not a paper-encyclopedia, and I feel this may be an example of that. However if this comment were to be seen as offencive by others, it's removal could be considered. Ian 13 20:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree it should be in there. In fact it might have been me that added it to the page originally... There's a wider point to be made here, apart from its historical veracity, that WP is not Brittanica, etc, all of which are very good reasons. There seems to be a tendency for people here to mistake interesting trivia, unusual writing styles, etc as POV, somehow. As a result there is a trend for articles to become more and more bland and dull over time, as new contribuors change things simply to eradicate these quirks, which overall do not alter the factual content of an article, only its style. I call it 'blandification' and I see it many articles. I think it should be resisted, though it's pretty difficult at times. If something is genuinely POV, or factually incorrect, by all means it should be changed - but simply changing a particular choice of words to another choice to eliminate more interesting language seems to me perverse and detrimental to the project. WP does not need to be dry. WP does not need to be a dull list of facts. All WP needs to be is true, and well-written. Graham 22:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I myself am relatively new to editing with an account at Wikipedia, but as long as interesting styles and facts are accurate, I feel it can only expand knowledge on a subject. I feel there is a great lession to be learnt. WP is very mixed in editors, but as long as it is accurate, I love it. Shame power corupts, and I think it may be the same here (just a hint). Ian 13 21:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I give in, but continue to disagree with the comments above. Firstly, I don't know how much that "sadly broke" name was used. I live only 5 miles from Bradley Stoke but, at the time, never heard the phrase used, Secondly, it does sound jokey and silly, whether the enclopedia is on or off line. However, I'll leave it there under protest - Adrian Pingstone 15:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It was recently (well, 3 months ago) mentioned on a BBC National News article, as the nickname for badley stoke, when they were discussing falling house prices and rising interest rates. Also before that time, when I visited reletives in north england, they managed to pick up on the name, so it is quite well used. But I can see why it would sound inapproate. Ian13 (speak!) 20:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

'Bradley Stoke Examiner'

I personally see no reason to link there. It is a blog, with little or no citations. It is also a very new site, and I can see no claims of notability. Google contains 3 links (one to the article, one to the old website URL, and one to a newer one). The website is also currently down. Ian¹³/t 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that I am only trying to ensure the article is high quality - and can be used as a resourse for others... Ian¹³/t 19:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue the link should stay - seems pretty relevant to the article - what's the harm?? Nige 20:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well - what I said above - unless there is some reason why these arn't valid..? Ian¹³/t 20:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely the point is the link refers to Bradley Stoke and is thus a genuine Bradley SAtoke article - it doesn't matter one iota how many links off google it's got - my final word anyway as it's unbelieveably petty this whole discussion IMHO. There's a danger wiki will become too strict/anal if edits like these continue. Nige 20:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not swear. And if you believe it is 'unbelieveably petty' then why are you here - if discussing is wrong then Wikipedia wouldn't get very far. Please see WP:EL and WP:NOT a linkfarm. Ian¹³/t 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[From the anon user making the edits[ Thanks Nige. I think the site adds to the article, and despite what Ian is claiming, it is clearly a new news site, despite the fact it is run in Blogger. The definition of a site should not be down to the tools used to create it. The addition does no harm.

Also, Ian, the site was down due to vandalism of the Telewest network according to its homepage. I think *that* is a petty excuse to have a go at it if ever I saw one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.20.181 (talk • contribs)

It was a sidenote - and I was noting it was unstable (yes, it doesn't say how often it was down), however the following still stands, and once more I ask you to assume good faith:

• It has little or no citations.
• It is a very new site.
• I still have no claims of notability besides 'it does no harm'.
• No-where references it on Google (besides this article itself).
• I can only assume you haven't read WP:EL and haven't tried to understand that WP:NOT a linkfarm.

And I would like to note that I am not in any way claiming to be an overseer of this article - but comments like "stop acting like some great overseer"[1] do not help a situation, and can be seen as incivil and personal attacks. For now I am leaving the link there to aid the situation, but I ask you continue discussion, else it may be removed once more. Thanks!

Ian¹³/t 19:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ian, again: Three users got involved in the Examiner debate, two said keep it, you said take it down. I think this means it should stay. When you say in the edit 'no objections raised', I think there were actually TWO objections raised to removing it. I don't understand your logic to removing it when clearly there were more people - albeit a small number - who said it should remain. Please explain why you have once again acted without backing to remove it.