Talk:Amble

Attention needed

Large parts of the article amount to unverified opinion pieces, especially the sections headed

• Battles for a separate council
• Coquet High School
• The Skate Park
• The division between rich and poor
  

-- Picapica 07:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all of the non encylopedic stuff - anything that fits Wikipedia critieria can be added back from history. 81.132.91.140

I think this page looks a real mess now - those 34 citations are far too many. Whoever 2.219.231.166 is, they have completely spoiled it. Just my opinion of course and I wouldn't dare re-edit it myself but it desperately needs tidying up asap. United2013 (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:V.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What has happened to the page? Why is there so much space at the top? --AnnaAtTheAmbler (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:River Coquet settlements was changed from a vertical list to horizontal, consistent with other UK river templates. I've moved the template so it's with the others at the end of the page. Peter James (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you--AnnaAtTheAmbler (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Would someone like to add somewhere that in 2015 Amble won Best Coastal High St of the year in the GB High St of the Year Awards. This is a competition run by the DCLG. You can find the info in the Gazette http://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/local-news/watch-we-will-build-on-success-of-amble-s-victory-say-community-leaders-1-7605105 and Evening Chronicle http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/northumberland-seaside-town-amble-crowned-10528198- and of course The Ambler http://www.theambler.co.uk/2015/11/30/amble-wins-top-coastal-town-accolade/ I would put this up myself but I've been told this is not considered acceptable. AnnaAtTheAmbler (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

someone has inserted a box about housing and the new hotel right in the middle of community development section. Should it be in a box? But anyway the info should be referenced, and in fact none of this has yet actually happened (eg the houses have not yet been built; the hotel is not yet finished, has anyone actually been given a job?) then it probably should be re-written : eg a large number of houses have recently been given planning permission, although some of the land has subsequently been put up for sale, and as of Oct 2018 the inn is nearly finished and they have been advertising for staff. I know it sounds pedantic, but this is my understanding of how wikipedia works AnnaAtTheAmbler (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Alnwick station?

In the section about railways it says that the railway 'runs via the nearby Alnmouth for Alnwick Station'. The station in Hipsburn is Alnmouth station, the station in Alnwick closed decades ago. Have I misunderstood this sentence or is it just wrong?--Jcvamp 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Alnmouth station was officially renamed "Alnmouth for Alnwick", for some reason, a year or so back. AndrewMcQ 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realise. That's kind of stupid. Thanks.--Jcvamp 18:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I know why..

I cannot use the most part of the Alnwick district's towns pictures? I try to translate this articles into Italian, but i just create meagre pages, being not able to include some pictures of the village I'm speaking about. Anyone can find me a solution? --Fiertel91 (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Friendliest Port

I'm going to alter the statement so it simply' says where it comes from. I believe the statement at the moment is raising questions rather than providing information which is what Wikipedia is about. We need to find a source to confirm exactly what Mauritania radioed to Amble, also I would doubt they would use the word 'kindliest' considering its not a word in the english language according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Furthermore the statement about Berwick being the last port in England is taking the statement out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.38.67.211 (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The ref to kindliest port & the telegram is stated in Tony Rylance & Paul Morrison's book: Amble the Friendliest Port: http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Amble-Friendliest-Port-Pictorial-History-Northumberland/8273187869/bd — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaAtTheAmbler (talk • contribs) 21:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There is also a reference to the RMS Mauretania including a photograph of it sailing past Coquet Island in a 1985 self published booklet financed by Amble Town Council. The booklet is called: A Story of Amble: Its beginnings and development with a tribute to Radcliffe, by David Wilkinson and Paul G Morrison. The booklet cites "an extract from (Alnwick) Gazette and Guardian" describing the wireless from Amble Urban Council to RMS Mauretania.--CosmicWildernessWarrior (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC) link to booklet (spelling mistake is Amazon's own) here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Amble-Beginnings-Developements-Tribute-Radcliffe/dp/B001I39KDQ/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1359034311&sr=1-3 --CosmicWildernessWarrior (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Name

Citation is required for the assertion that Amble was known as Amble by the Sea until 1985. The Ordnance Survey still has the civil parish named Amble by the Sea Election Maps as does the Office for National Statistics Census 2001. It appears from trawling through the web that the parish council styles itself Amble Town Council, though I am unable to find any official documents to corroborate this. However, even if this is the case, it does not necessarily mean that the name has been officially changed. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable Citizens

Samuel Johnson MBE included in this list - is he notable? Haven't removed as he might well be, but can't find anything on web about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J mcquillen (talk • contribs) 22:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

External Links

I've removed links to amblenorthumberland.co.uk made by account Amblenorthumberland - Wiki clearly states self promotion as no-no in its policy docs.

Yes I've seen this too. Removed the links again. How can you stop this from happening? 94.9.135.202 (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC) SacTF

I'm not sure - think the whole page needs a clean up - too many people putting links, not enough people contributing content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.159.208 (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Other interested parties have also added contributions to this page yet they are still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.233.159 (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amble&diff=prev&oldid=525846716 The above revision is by an interested party and "Wiki clearly states self promotion as no-no in its policy docs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amblenorthumberland (talk • contribs) 09:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I added too many links. Just learning. Bit concerned amblenorthumberland has added themselves in the Regeneration category, when they are a commercial business. Also they are not the website for Amble, adjectives notwithstanding.

Bit concerned that AnnaattheAmbler is also posting as an interested party (ie as the editor of the Ambler website/newspaper) and "Wiki clearly states self promotion as no-no in its policy docs". The Ambler is technically also a business as it has an income and expenditure stream (ie it takes advertising). I note the amblenorthumberland account has been blocked as a result.

Also if she had read the amblenorthumberland entry properly, they never stated it was the website for Amble but stated they were the website for #AmazingAmble which is their own campaign. Surely as both websites are for the good of the town there should be a spirit of co-operation between them instead of all this bitching and trouble-making. Very disappointing and it doesn't look good at all.

I've deleted the amblenorthumberland paragraph from the Regeneration category and added a new section specifically for the website. I assume no-one can complain about that or remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by United2013 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I note that some of my comments have been deleted so I have reinstated them - please have the courtesy to leave any future comments on this page, I don't delete your comments no matter how much I disagree with them. 86.184.222.22 (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never deleted anything My comment that the Ambler is most definitely not a business, it is a community group run by a charity has just been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaAtTheAmbler (talk • contribs) 16:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Not by me! I didn't accuse anyone specifically! Methinks someone is having a game with us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.222.22 (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

A charity is not the same as a commercial business. Money taken by the Ambler for advertising goes to the Amble Development Trust, a charity. How can you justify lying and saying it's a business just because your site advertising was removed on the basis that it was a business? It should be noted that you acknowledged your site is a business when you said 'The Ambler is technically also a business'. It makes the argument for removing the reference so much easier.--Jcvamp (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we now know who the trouble maker is! How DARE you Jcvamp - and how dare you accuse us of lying! Any organisation with an income and expenditure stream is technically a business. I don't know who you are and what axe you have to grind with the amblenorthumberland website because I have never even met you. We promote Amble, just like the Ambler, we accept money for advertising to cover costs, just like the Ambler and we have every right to appear on this page - just like the Ambler. Any more defamatory comments from you will result in legal action. Posted by a representative of the amblenorthumberland.co.uk website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.222.22 (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

SECTION ON AMBLENORTHUMBERLAND WEBSITE NOW REMOVED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.222.22 (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC) 86.184.222.22 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we keep this civil please? It is misleading to call the Ambler a business. My corrections and contributions aren't about axe grinding, they're about trying to make this page conform with Wikipedia standards. I'm not the only person who has edited this article for this reason. The issue is whether or not your website is suitable for inclusion in this article. As a link in the 'external links' section, pointing to an informational website is fair enough. Adding a section for it, or including it amongst community projects is different. That is my objection.--Jcvamp (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not the one who accused us of lying which in my book is a very serious defamatory statement and I do not take such accusations lightly. In my 40+ years in business (over 20 of them in business education), a business is defined as any organisation with an income and expenditure stream. I still do not see why the website cannot have a section as it is a useful and important new resource for Amble but we will have to agree to differ. 86.184.222.22 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry about accusing you of lying. I draw a distinction between a commercial business and a charity. The stament was not meant to be defamatory, it was me expressing myself badly. As I have said, I think the website can have a place as an external link.--Jcvamp (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Side note: I opened a thread in regards to the legal threat made above at wp:ANI.TMCk (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

uninvolved editor observation This whole argument is going back and forth on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Has anybody bothered to see what WP:EL says about the subject? Just sayin....Preference arguments usually go nowhere; the applicable policy is WP:EL. Why don't you all look at it and decide whether this link belongs based on what the policy says? Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this page, which has been removed for some reason (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amble&diff=next&oldid=533763411), about the fact that the link was considered to violate the conflict of interest policy. I have been editing the page on that basis. Is it possible to restore the original discussion?--Jcvamp (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am just an editor like you, but I don't see anything in the diff you marked up on WP:EL. Sure you got the right one?Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Two comments were removed, 'There's a difference between an official website (such as the Ambler and the Amble Development Trust), which are community run projects, and a personal website run by two people.--Jcvamp (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)' and 'I see AmbleNorthumberland has reinstated their promotional paragraph and link. The bottom line here is that they run their website as a commercial business. Is it ok for them to promote their business on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaAtTheAmbler (talk • contribs) 22:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)'. The original two bringing up the issue of self promotion are still there; I didn't realise they were. Sorry about the misunderstanding.--Jcvamp (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally, websites run by the local government are allowed. Over on this side of the pond, the chamber of commerce's website is allowed. links to noncommercial sites that have history writeups or photos of the local area are fine. a link to the local newspaper is fine. so the problems are, IMHO, are "amblenorthumberland website", and the one to a forum. You guys should try to form a consensus on the rest and pare them down a bit. This is a town of less than 10,000 people. There are way too many links for a town this size. Just a non involved editor, who has a lot of experience editing town articles, opinion, given with the idea of trying to restore calm here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.--Jcvamp (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The Ambler was mentioned inline but unsourced, while having a link in the EL section. This seems to be wrong on both counts - see WP:V and WP:ELNO, item 19, for which the exceptions do not appear to apply. I've moved the "source" inline from the EL section. Hopefully, this fracas can now be put to rest. --2.219.231.166 (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added external links for both the Ambler and amblenorthumberland - NOW this fracas can be put to rest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by United2013 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You have done that before and have been reverted, which means you are edit warring. I have not done it before but have now reverted you per WP:CONSENSUS. - 2.219.231.166 (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I see no consensus here to remove them, and they are fine (official local tourist site and local newspaper) per WP:EL. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Where is it official as a tourist site? Do you even know how tourism is "officially" organised in England? Eg: the Tourist Board? Local newspaper fails ELNO #19 if it is already cited, which it is as a complete paragraph in its own right. --2.219.231.166 (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not understand what you are trying to say. I did get the bit about the tourist authority, but are local tourism authorities banned or something? And what do references have to do with external links? Gtwfan52 (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And I am sorry because you obviously have not read your own words, nor WP:ELNO, nor considered the removal made by an editor here approx 6 hours ago after some help desk comment. You say that it is an "official tourist site" - prove it. --2.219.231.166 (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP WARRING - ITS NOT WORTH IT! Take the links down if they are going to cause so much trouble! Wish I'd never bothered now. The amblenorthumberland website is a local tourism website and its entire aim is to promote and help aid the regeneration of the town. If it is not 'worthy' of a mention on Wikipedia then so be it! BTW funny how when I was adding links I was edit-warring but when 2.219.231.166 does it its called 'reversion'!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by United2013 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry forgot to sign my last post - naughty me! United2013 (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

2.219.231.166, you've made a lot of good contributions to the page. You said that a link to The Ambler website is in violation of WP:V (I don't understand how) and WP:ELNO item 19. Is linking to the website possible and if so, in what way, or should it be left out? Also, the Amble Tourist Information site was taken off. On what basis? In regards to the AmbleNorthumberland site, while I don't think it's worthy of inclusion in the body of the article, it does provide information which could merit its inclusion in the External Links.

I think it would be useful to discuss what links should and shouldn't be in the article and come to an agreement before any further editing of links takes place. Everybody can have their say, policy can be quoted for specific links, and links can be considered on their own merit. --Jcvamp (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No, what I said was we had an unsourced paragraph for The Ambler. Moving the EL into the body in order to source that paragraph - per WP:V - then means we should not show it in external links. This is made perfectly clear at WP:ELNO, #19. Furthermore, we should not encourage linkspam nor link to items that may lack authority. It is for this reason that links are frequently removed at, for example, Rossendale.

This article is very easy to expand and to source, by the way. There is a lot of information out there if people put their minds to it instead of concentrating on matters where WP:COI is clearly involved. --2.219.231.166 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. There has been a lot of editing going on, and it's hard to follow what is happening. If the link is best as a source rather than an external link, fair enough. How do we determine whether links have authority?--Jcvamp (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a novice on here and because the talk page sections no longer match the actual page, i hope you dont mind I'm putting this here, where most of the attention seems to be. Sorry if that's wrong. There's been an absolute ton of info added recently and in ref to that, can I mention that part of the Braid was actually designated Village Green status in 2009, after a heated legal debate when Northumberland Estates submitted plans to build a supermarket on the area known as Braid Hill. The link to NCC info is here: http://www3.northumberland.gov.uk/Councillor/Upload/CDocs/1049_M257.doc. So to be clear, Braid Hill and a small section of the Braid is not VIllage Green, the rest is. Also, the Village Green designated part of the Braid lies in Warkworth Parish and they have legal jurisdiction over it. ~~AnnaAtTheAmbler~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaAtTheAmbler (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added a bit to it. You can edit it to include more of the information if you can phrase it better than I can without interrupting the flow of the paragraph.--Jcvamp (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

My work here is done. There are some useful sources to be mined in the Further Reading section and there are plenty of others out there if anyone cares to look.--2.219.231.166 (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I still do not see the need for the two promotional links - to The Ambler and amblenorthumberland.co.uk - and I cannot understand why there has been no attempt to add the official town council website. I realise that a lot of the contributors have conflicts of interest and it seems that there have been allegations that Jcvamp is among those, so perhaps in the interests of fairness and not spawning some sort of linkfarm, it would be better to ditch the two promotional links, add the council one and then let the locals argue the toss with their own council regarding provision of high-profile links to their various organisations on that body's website. Otherwise, this could become never-ending because there are a lot of community groups in the town, eg: the Amble Allotment Holders' Society, the British Legion, the Rotary, the Amble Business Club, Amble Action Group, Pride in Amble, the Christmas Lights people etc. Really, it is a wonder anything actually gets done other than fiddling around with issues of civic pride etc but, of course, we rarely include such things in the EL sections of articles such as this. It is not Wikipedia's role to act as some sort of directory of local bodies, although often it does fall under the remit of local council websites.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely there is no harm in keeping both links you mention above - they both give important information about the town.

There is also a (not for profit) community portal called www.amblecommunity.co.uk which is in the process of collating contact details of all the various community and voluntary groups in the town - maybe that should appear on the external links page. I always thought that the one of the purposes of Wikipedia was to be a source of information and reference. NorthEast65 (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I note your sandbox, There is clearly meatpuppetry going on here, and probably sockpuppetry also. I have no intention of responding to all of these single-purpose accounts that have recently been set up. You add it, I'll remove it.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

1. What are you going on about - speak English! 2. What gives you the right to arbitrate what is allowed on a page or not? Do you come from Amble or know anything about the town? 3. I have no intention of adding anything to the page now or ever. 4. The Amble page is a mess now after all the alterations to it 5. What is the harm in having external links to The Ambler and amblenorthumberland? United2013 (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm. It seems that United2013 has now confirmed themselves as socking using NorthEast65. There are also allegations of them using other accounts for sock purposes, and counterclaims that Jcvamp has a conflict of interest. Since AnnaAtTheAmbler has also admitted to a COI and CosmicWildernessWarrior has turned up out of nowhere today to push the business angle as United2013 did, this talk page seems to comprise in large part the comments of people who have far too vested an interest to contribute in a neutral manner.

Can anyone give me a decent reason why I should not just ignore the lot of them?--176.253.179.215 (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

How dare you! The two accounts you mention are held by different people but at least we don't hide behind a random number like you do - what the hell is socking anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by United2013 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

In reference to myself and my own interests in this page, I have been using Wikipedia for years; I didn't create my account to promote a website. My edits on this page have been about tidying up, and inserting citations when needed. I think it should be clear from my edits that I am not here acting on behalf of any organisation. I just want to improve the article. I am willing to discuss reasonably which websites warrant inclusion in External Link, but that's not really my focus in editing this page.--Jcvamp (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

River Coquet settlements

Can anyone convert {{River Coquet settlements}} into a navbox? I think that the template may have been created before navboxes were available but, really, this should be one and it should be situated either vertically below the infobox or - better - at the bottom of the page with the other horizontal navboxes. I've just fixed the alpha-order of the the template but don't know how to take it further. --2.219.231.166 (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The section called 'Town'

The section has some interesting information, but I wonder if it might be better to call the section 'History' or 'Town History'. I think a section called 'Town' should be more contemporary. Any thoughts?--Jcvamp (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is strange, in an article on a town, to have a section called "town" at all. Maproom (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Town History. The whole page is quite history heavy now. There should probably be a bit more contemporary stuff, but I worry that it will be deemed too trivial, or difficult to extricate from personal interest.--AnnaAtTheAmbler (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Heading is wrong, yes. I nearly changed it yesterday but thought I would see where the sources took me. AS far as personal interest is concerned, if you have such a thing then you should not really edit the article at all. See WP:COI and confine yourself to this talk page. - 176.253.179.215 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia guide on what a town article should and should not contain?--Jcvamp (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your best guide will be found among articles about towns that have achieved WP:GA or WP:FA status. Compare those with this one.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Will take a look.--Jcvamp (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UKCITIES is a project guide. Btw, I notice that this bills itself as the official tourist guide, and the logos used seem to support it.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That link goes to UK2.net website hosting. Did you mean [1]? I have been dubious of the site that is currently listed as the official site ([2]).--Jcvamp (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I did indeed mean .com rather .co.uk. My apologies. The other site to which you refer is clearly hosted on a local government server but the only content there that is of use could easily be transferred to Commons because it is well out of copyright. No need to be fooled by any dire warnings/permissions that it displays re: ownership etc.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In the section entitled Present Day, the first paragraph should be moved to the history section. It is a quote from Pevsner who died in 1983. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.125.244 (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No. It is a quote from the revised Pevsner of 1992. If anything, what needs to be checked is whether Pevsner the person said it (as linked) or whether it was merely Pevsner the book.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

maybe the para can begin differently then?

Also to my knowledge there is only one telecommunication company (BT exchange) on the industrial estate. There are a wide variety of businesses on there and a children's nursery. If mention is made of this, I wonder whether Queen Street should not be mentioned as being the main shopping street. Though of course this may be deemed trivial.

I have rephrased, probably as you were typing your reply. As far as business stuff goes, provided that the info is sourced and does not take on the appearance of a directory ... I worry about input from the Business Club, for example, and it is clear that there is a lot of COI stuff going on here. Notable schools and places of worship etc could also be deserving of a mention, although preferably not as a list. Way back when, Amble was apparently a centre of Primitive Methodism.

I also seen references that suggest gas first came to the town around the 1870s, although gas lighting of the streets did not occur until the 1910s. Electricity appears to have been introduced in the early 1900s, as also were the poles of the National Telephone Company.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Reference error

"Multiple references are using the same name" — name="Nef"   ~   I can't fix this (don't have reference access). ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. If you are in the UK and cannot see that or other sources, try this - a US proxy for GBooks.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And anyone who has access to the archives of The Observer and The (Manchester) Guardian will find shedloads of references to "Amble Northumberland" from the start of publication of those newspapers until the 2000s. Many relate to shipwrecks etc but there really is all sorts of stuff in there - 369 hits. Similarly, for The Times.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Development Trust

I have just removed the Development Trust stuff. I did copyedit it a few days ago, when it appears now to have been a literal copy-paste from the Trust website. Even after my copyedit, it is still a very close paraphrase and thus not acceptable. I have no qualms about something about this group appearing in the article but we have to use of own words etc. I still have some grave doubts about The Ambler and about some of the external links.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ref the Tourism section - A £10,000 grant has been awarded to promote the town with a "Puffin Festival" - this is not true. The money was awarded to promote the town's independent businesses AND to stage two promotional festivals, one of which is the puffin festival.--CosmicWildernessWarrior (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So find an independent source that says so. The BBC seems not to do and, in any event, the elaboration seems trivial to me: it is the Puffin bit that has hit the headlines. As I understand it, the grant is pretty much a consolation prize after failure related to the Portas scheme, but that also is too trivial to mention. Define "independent business" while you are at it, please. However you do so, there won't be many that survive Tesco's arrival, except estate agents etc. That's how much most people care about independent businesses in the UK.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This statement above is of course your own opinion. And I believe it is not trivial. To state that £10K has been awarded purely for a puffin festival is misleading.--CosmicWildernessWarrior (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The only reference I can find at the moment, apart from the BBC website, is from The Ambler website, and it appears to be clearer on this issue. As there is currently debate over the inclusion of The Ambler in this article, I am reluctant to add it as a source.--Jcvamp (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Cosmic, you may perhaps be an inhabitant of Amble and maybe even a business person there, which would certainly affect your opinion. We say what the sources say, not what we think to be true - WP:V. The independent source appears to have picked up on the festival which, pretty much self-evidently, should boost footfall etc. The sourcing issue was a big problem with this article until recently and precisely why someone tagged it as needing sources some years ago. Seemingly, no-one was willing to do anything about it. I am trying.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

here you are: http://www.mediatrust.org/newswirefeed/puffin-festival-wins-grant-funding/2510--CosmicWildernessWarrior (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. And it latches on to the Puffin Festival bit, as with the BBC. I amended the wording an hour or so ago. Let that be the end of this, please, otherwise I'll just remove the entire paragraph that I added because this battling is ridiculous. If people had spent as much energy trying to improve the article instead of descending on it with their hobbyhorses as they have done recently then perhaps it would long ago have attained WP:GA status.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Marina

It seems that the marina development came about in the mid-1980s as a result of grant money being awarded. I'd really rather we didn't use The Ambler as a source for anything much in the article because it is clearly too involved & we do not usually cite advocacy groups for anything other than information about themselves. Are there are local news sources for this development? Eg: local BBC news websites, Alnwick or Newcastle etc newspapers?--176.253.179.215 (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The last chapter of Tony Rylance & Paul Morrison's book: Amble the Friendliest Port: http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Amble-Friendliest-Port-Pictorial-History-Northumberland/8273187869/bd has some information on the development Marina.--CosmicWildernessWarrior (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

In what way is The Ambler too involved? user:AnnaAtTheAmbler hasn't done anything to the article since 3rd January according to her Contributions page.--Jcvamp (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Advocacy groups are not deemed to be reliable sources except for statements concerning themselves (eg: their constitution and aims). That is a well-established principle at WP:RSN Similarly, per WP:COI, anyone involved with the town has a conflict of interest and needs to take care. Her username itself was a violation of policy, by the way. It is quite clear from the state that this article was in, and the warring about external links, that various people had/have a conflict of interest. In particular, there was a glossing-over of what really seems to be, alas, a pretty dire socio-economic situation in favour of accentuating the positive.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

In what way is a newspaper an advocacy group? I know there has definitely been COI on this page, but I thought that had been resolved.--Jcvamp (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Because it is a voluntarily-run, Development Trust & Council-supported (perhaps even financed) initiative. It lacks professional standards of independence and editorial oversight and is quite clearly intended to promote the cohesion of the town rather than exist as a business etc. By my reckoning, as an outsider, it does a decent job of that but it seems to be a small-circulation organ of advocacy. I am still wandering through the website but finding it quite awkward to navigate because the same stories keep cropping up, perhaps because it uses a tag system like a blog. So far, I am finding nothing in the way of critical reportage, for example, except in the "have your say" sections. "Everything is rosy in Amble" but, of course, it is not.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So, it's an issue of whether or not it's a reliable source. How do we determine that? Still not sure if it can be classed as an advocacy group, but I understand your point.--Jcvamp (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been reading WP:NEWSORG and it's hard to judeg. It does say, 'Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.'--Jcvamp (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to accept it as a genuine news organisation if you or someone else could find some news stories within it that are critical of the town, its businesses or its administration etc. It seems to me to be an organ of local puffery, which is fine and good for its intended purpose but useless as a source on wikipedia. It is for the same reason that we disapprove of hagiographies as sources for biographies. In any event, if the point here is to say more about the grant mentioned in the section above then we'll have to be aware of weight also: it is one government grant among many that the town has had over the years and it really is rather small (eg: £1.5 million was given to local businesses in the 1970s)--176.253.179.215 (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Amble Town Council site

[[3]] could be useful as a source.--Jcvamp (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That site is already being used as a source but needs some care. The stuff about the history of the council itself is particularly useful &, of course, the council is ok as an authority (unintentional pun) about itself. But I had to backtrack because what we had already was a copyright violation. Need to reword things. I still believe that with the exception of this particular website, which is indubitably official and is of the type included in every town article you'll see, no other Amble-based organisation should be in External Links, They are causing far too many problems and the locals should fight it out with their council to get coverage on that site.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why keystothepast has been removed as a source; it doesn't say "not authoritative" only "no responsibility for any inaccuracy contained therein", i.e. not "this is not a reliable source" but a legal disclaimer which seems standard when people will threaten legal action for trivial reasons (if they can be called reasons at all). I also suggest that most of the links seemed at least potentially appropriate; the forum shouldn't have been there and if any self-published personal sites were there I would support their removal; but the suggestion that "no other Amble-based organisation should be in External Links" is unreasonable because a council, as a political organisation, is as likely to be biased as any other organisation or writer. Peter James (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the council website may be political (although doesn't seem to be, perhaps because its powers are so few). However, all council websites are governed by a statutory code of conduct and it already provides information about a lot of the local groups. As for keystothepast, I think you need to revisit WP:RS and perhaps even WP:MF, as noted in my reply in the thread below. It should not be used anywhere and I'll happily see you at WP:RSN if you think otherwise. It is not a standard disclaimer found among high-quality sources used on Wikipedia, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Yet again, I point out that it is not usual to include in External Links something that is cited in the article body. Official websites of towns are a common exception to that rule but, for example, links to every newspaper that covers Bolton would be unreasonably long and spammy. The Ambler is cited inline; if we are going to include it then - especially given its clear bias - we should include links to other news sources that cover the area, such as The Journal.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Town status

The words 'The civil parish, which has town status,' have a citation needed tag next to them. What exactly does it mean to have town status? --Jcvamp (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There are various definitions, however a parish council may call itself a town - Town status in the United Kingdom redirects to List of towns in the United Kingdom, which provides explanation. The council's website should be sufficient for this; a .gov domain confirms it's official. Peter James (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A .gov.uk domain does not confirm that it is a town. That is a ridiculous and plainly incorrect assumption, eg: [4]. And please read WP:CIRCULAR with regard to the links you provide. Unless those linked articles have reliable sources that we can use in this article for the assertion, they are useless.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The "list of towns" article has a source (Local Government Act 1972, which is also cited as a source in Civil parishes in England) - there's another in Parish councils in England. And it's the use of "Town Council" that confirms it's a town - when used on the main page of a .gov domain that confirms that it's an official site. Peter James (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

None of that - even the council website - confirms that the civil parish is a town. In fact, the difference in nomenclature may be significant there. Easier just to remove the point of doubt, as I have done.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The council's site only refers to it as a town. You've claimed that they "do not necessarily align" (any examples of this?), but the parish's status of town is from the council it's unclear how this is possible - particularly as it's a successor parish. It's unreasonable to require a source saying that there is no such anomaly in Amble. Where is the difference in nomenclature? Peter James (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Successor parish?--176.253.179.215 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Successor parish - a replacement for an existing district, not created from part of an unparished area. A few were created from only parts of existing districts (which I should have remembered), but this was not one of them. The parish of Amble was created by The Local Government (Successor Parishes) Order 1973 under powers from the Local Government Act 1972, to replace Amble Urban District. Peter James (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and yikes! I'll have to try to get my head round that. I am trying to expand/improve this article in a lot of different directions at the moment and the minutiae of post-war English local government changes have never been my strongest suit.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In the History section there could be mention of the bronze age artifacts discovered along the dunes. http://www.keystothepast.info/durhamcc/K2P.nsf/K2PDetail?readform&PRN=N12984 --CosmicWildernessWarrior (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We first need agreement over the authority of 'www.keystothepast.info', as it was called into question in the previous thread.--Jcvamp (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

ok try this link. Esp page 7 http://www.archaeologicalresearchservices.com/projects/nerczapdfs/Chapter%208%20South%20Beach,%20Blyth%20to%20Low%20Newton-by-the-Sea.pdf --CosmicWildernessWarrior (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Actually there is so much in this, perhaps it could be included in the Further Reading section --CosmicWildernessWarrior (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks promising.--Jcvamp (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A citation of Keys To The Past was removed here by an anonymous user. The site has been discussed before at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blyth, Northumberland, where it was accepted and the article was promoted to FA. Peter James (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Find something else, as Cosmic appears to have done. A source that specifically says it is compiled from other sources and which refuses to accept responsibility for its content is not acceptable and should not be so anywhere, let alone in a FA. Apart from the obvious, the compilation may include material from Wikipedia itself - completely useless.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If people bothered to read the stuff that I've already added, they'd find that there are sources already for the artefacts that were found at nearby Gloster Hill etc. That's why I cite-dumped some books in Further Reading, with a note to the effect that they could be mined, and it is why I left a comment about such here under my 2.* IP address a few days ago. There is no need to use keys for this.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It can be replaced with better sources, but don't replace it with "citation needed". The disclaimer is not as unusual as you may think - Skye was promoted to FA recently and appeared on the main page yesterday, with sources including Ordnance Survey (disclaimers:[5][6]) and Gazetteer for Scotland (also with a disclaimer:[7]) - and those are among the more reliable of the online sources used in the article. Anything published since the mid 2000s (including books and newspapers) may rely on Wikipedia for some of its information - and it's unlikely that this was copied from Wikipedia. Peter James (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of Wayback, thanks. My point was more general and you have rather confirmed it in your comment on the ubiquity of Wikipedia. That is precisely why we should take extreme care with sources that have disclaimers or whose information is not clearly sourced to something else. If you think otherwise then you may as well not bother sourcing at all.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Take it to the noticeboard, if that's what you think, use of source such as this (and others less reliable) in this way is accepted by other editors. More disclaimers: The Times, The Guardian, information on those sites is usually provided without citations of sources, so are they also unusable? Peter James (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I will in due course. I'll email Malleus first, since he was one of those involved in the discussion that you linked to and is one of the few straight-talkers we have (had?). In any event, we don't need to use the source here and so we won't.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Just reading through the above - can someone clarify, is user 176.253.179.215 the same person as user 2.219.231.166? --AnnaAtTheAmbler (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hauxley

Hauxley also appears in sources as Auxley, Hawksley etc, presumably being archaic spellings. Are these the same place as Low Hauxley?--176.253.179.215 (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent revert, and possible new stuff

• I've just reverted something that AnnaAtTheAmbler added because it did not actually say that the seafood factory had re-opened, merely that the possibility was being examined by the new owners. There was a story reporting Beith's view on this in the previous week's edition of the same source, where it was made clear the decision would take some time. Can this be firmed up?

• Also from that source, is there any mileage to be had from this or this? The latter, in particular, would be worth a mention if the town actually made the competition final.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I find this one a bit weird because the proposals that are mentioned include repeats of previous failed/gone AWOL ventures. It is also a report written by a local resident but I see that the guy is an academic who runs a consultancy specialising in the regeneration etc sphere, so that is ok from our point of view. We need to be aware of WP:CRYSTAL but can we perhaps at least state that it is the town's intention to push the tourist angle?--176.253.179.215 (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• And can anyone clarify the present-day position of the Duke of Northumberland w.r.t. the town? For example, this suggests that the duchy probably still owns at least the land around the Braid. Ta.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I presume the theme park never happened? There are various reports about it, aside from this letter.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Did a decision concerning the floating artwork ever materialise? And does anyone know for sure whether the sundial has the largest gnomon in Europe? I am seeing conflicting reports for that.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Did the swimming pool ever happen? It sounds very much as if this caravan site is for the static rather than travelling variety.--176.253.179.215 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There's one at The Granary [[8]] don't know about the caravan park.--Jcvamp (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm. The news report suggested a public pool at the caravan park but does mention something about the Granary being rescued from a run-down state. The link you give sounds more like a members' club/gym type of thing rather than a public pool. I note also that football teams have come and gone - perhaps there is sufficient info out there for a sports/leisure section?

(I've just bullet-pointed all my previous queries in this thread, so that people can respond to any that they choose. I couldn't see sense in starting new sections for each of these but perhaps I am wrong.)--176.253.179.215 (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find when I have some time to look things up.--Jcvamp (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amble. 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/20120916100844/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/sites/boulmer.html to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/sites/boulmer.html
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121005231719/http%3A//www3.northumberland.gov.uk/Councillor/Upload/CDocs/1049_M257.doc to http://www3.northumberland.gov.uk/Councillor/Upload/CDocs/1049_M257.doc

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) 12:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Gaelic

I'm a bit confused about the Etymology section. A recent change by Mahagaja made Scottish Gaelic explicit in the text, though it didn't actually change the resultant link. Even so, the text goes on to say that Irish missionaries might have brought the name in - so would that really be Scottish Gaelic that we should refer to, or the Irish flavour? I've reverted for now but just to draw attention to this, not as a hostile act! I'd be very interested to see what people think and I am tb-ing and have pinged (pung?) Mahagaja. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Looking at the context more closely, probably a link to Goidelic languages would be better (and it should say Goidelic rather than Gaelic). The form cited, "Am Béal", is kind of a mishmash anyway; the Scottish Gaelic spelling would be am beul, and the Irish spelling would be an béal. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: - thank you for the nice and very interesting response. I had never knowingly seen the word Goidelic before but I am happy to bow to your obvious expertise and I have whacked it in on general sheep/lamb-hanging grounds. That said, I am not sure why we are saying just Goidelic when the Goidelic languages article does mention Gaelic as an alternative, but since you have made this explicit I have gone with it, but of course without knowing the subtleties that no doubt inform your suggestion. What this means is that when other editors queue up here to beat me up, I am confidently expecting that you will be right by my side with assistance and explanation – on my own, I'm doomed! :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: "Gaelic" is an alternative name for Goidelic, but it's somewhat ambiguous as it can be used to refer specifically to Scottish Gaelic, and sometimes to Irish (more in the Irish diaspora than in Ireland itself). The language family as a whole is usually called Goidelic, especially in scholarly writing, but calling it Gaelic isn't wrong. All that said, however, I'm pretty skeptical that Amble has a Goidelic etymology. I'm not at all sure that Gaelic speakers ever made it that far south (see the maps at History of Scottish Gaelic and Brittonic languages#History and origins). An Old English etymology is far more likely; and if it is Celtic, it's more likely to be Brythonic (Cumbric or something close to it) than Goidelic. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 17:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I just re-read the article and noticed that the source attributes a Goidelic name to Irish missionaries rather than a local Gaelic-speaking population. So that takes care of my immediate objection, but I remain skeptical. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 17:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Soooo ... leave it as is, or would you prefer to go for something else? I'm not an expert on Gaelic or Amble or anything much, so I am not wedded to any particular version - as long as it ends up credible and referenced I will stand u and salute it. Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It's got a source, so we may as well leave it. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)