Talk:Port Talbot

Port Talbot and Blade Runner

Movie director Ridley Scott quotes the sight of Port Talbot Steelworks at night to be his inspiration for the dark, gigantic buildings in films like Blade Runner.

Does anyone have a source for any quote relating to this? ~ CBGB 19:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The Blade Runner inspiration is discussed in Paul Sammon's book: Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner. Drunkenmonkey111 (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI, One of Vincent Jones accomplishments (of a sexual nature) - does anyone have sauce for this?

"Source", not 'sauce'. Good old Port Talbot education.

If you are going to edit the Port Talbot entry please can you make sure you are able to spell pretty well and have a fairly good grasp of grammatic knowledge, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.200.215 (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Blue Flag

I have reinstated the statement about not obtaining the Blue Flag in 2009 because this relies on the water quality obtained in 2008. In 2008 the beach failed the water quality criteria thus will not be allowed to legally raise the flag in 2009 Canol (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your source is not on this talk page. Please provide one or I shall seek a third opinion. Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For some reason there was an edit conflict with the system so my source did not appear. However here it is again.

The criteria for a blue flag in 2009 is that not more than 20% of samples taken in 2008 must be below excellent quality. here is the quality figs for 2008 http://www.neath-porttalbot.gov.uk/PDF/Seawater2008.pdf There are 6 results below excellent, to comply there should be less than 4 The criteria for blue flag is shown here on page 8 of 26 http://www.blueflag.org/Materiale/Download+docs/BeachCriteriaExplanatoryNotes2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canol (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just say something such as, "In 2008 the beach failed the water quality criteria(insert your ref) that will be used to determine status in 2009 (insert a ref on the process)" - that wouldn't raise problems of prediction or speculation. Pondle (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a form of words as Pondle suggests, you agree Welshleprechaun?Canol (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes that sounds much better, but the reference belongs in the article not on the talk page. Do you understand why I disagreed with the your first wording? Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, I havn't got a crystal ball but I think you thought that I was using one on Wki. However my justification was that the event was notable so was justified see below quote from WP:Crystal "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable" I hope you can see I always give lots of thought into what I add on Wikipedia, I would appreciate discussion before complete deletion in future. your comments here though are most constructive and I'm off to make the changes as you suggest. Canol (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I didn't think it was notable, it's that the event wasn't even scheduled to happen as there's no source specifically 'stating that the Blue Flag will or may be removed, just data that point to it. Anyway, I don't want you to think that this was anything personal, just the above reason. Your edits seem to be of a high standard. Welshleprechaun (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but the flag has already been taken down at the end of last season, there is no action to take, they will just not be able to put it up again and it will not be something the council will want to advertise. Of course that is POV Canol (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Porttalbotarms.PNG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Porttalbotarms.PNG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 4 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Porttalbotarms.PNG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

History Section

An anonymous edit has added considerably to the section on Port Talbot history, which is good to see, but unfortunately has not included any information on the sources of the information. If you see this, and can add some references that would massively improve the contribution. (Without it, someone may delete it all as unverified!) If you are not sure how to add the refs, just put some details of where your information came from after each paragraph, and I will be glad to format them as references. Better still, set yourself up with an account, which means helpful discussions can be had on your own talk page. It is free, easy, and much better than working anonymously. RobinLeicester (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The added and unreferenced text did include some new information but also repeated large amounts of information that was already in the article. The addition also deleted the governance section. I have undone the change to regain the latter and looked more closely at the additional information, which had some useful nuggets but also some apparent inaccuracies. I have added a para about the medieval history and links to Robert Fitzhamon. Paul W (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

At the beginning section of History it currently reads that farming ditches have been dated to 14,000BC - this feels like (considering on Wiki page about agriculture it first developed around 10,000BC) as too early a date...? I would love to be proved wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.177.76 (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter Bush / list of 'notable people'

There's a lot of ping-ponging back and forth among different editors; the issue was raised earlier at WP:EAR, here, and I've asked others to weigh in. JohnInDC (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Note about Port Talbot Article

Port Talbot recent contributions were done by somebody who is a local and actual understands the area and that specialises in Geogrpahy, Geology and Politics particulaly in the Port Talbot area and clear, correct, up to date references have been given to support the evidence. Districts of Port Talbot are not cities as Port Talbot is a large town and is not classified as city so the districts are even smaller areas so they are considered apart of internal srucutre of Port Talbot (CBD etc). These districts have their own local Representative in the Neath Port Talbot Council and the areas are clearly marked out in books and on maps. Human Geography and Physical Geography are completely separated subjects. One is about human factors (population etc) and the other physical factors (topography etc). Stick to your rugby not science.

The information I removed was backed with comments. Mainly, adding a list of districts is not helpful to the article. In fact lists are to be avoided if possible unless in a list article. As much information as possible needs to be placed as text in paragraphs. Also, due to governmental restructuring, in Wales communities tend to be the way we inform people of geographical subdivisions of counties. Please check the Navboxes of most articles on Welsh counties to see how these have been adopted. I removed your cites because they were not of the correct format or of an acceptable academic quality for Wikipedia's standards. Forums, blogs, mention of a published paper or academic journal without stating location or author, wiki sites, circular references or even good sites which just take you to a front-page rather than to the correct page which contains the information required are not acceptable. These are the reasons I removed them. I am not the only person to notice this as another editor tagged the article for formatting immediately after your first post. As a new editor to Wikipedia if you need help then just ask at the forums or just talk to an experienced editor, most are friendly and are willing to help. The reason that I didn't just delete all your work in one sweep should show you that I did not devalue your work just portions that were not within Wikipedia's standards. I completely understand the difference between human and physical geography and your contributions are valid. If you have any further questions, either post it here or on my talkpage, not my userpage. Also don't presume that just because someone is a member of certain projects that they too are not scientists, professors, librarians or lecturers. Many people like to leave work at work. FruitMonkey (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Port Talbot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121021190046/http://www.neath-porttalbot.gov.uk/downloads/udp/complete_lowquality.pdf to http://www.neath-porttalbot.gov.uk/downloads/udp/complete_lowquality.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)