Talk:St Austell/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV problems

A little note to all those editing this article (if they ever even look at this page) and to the moderator/user that placed the new notice up there.

People contributing to this article are not fully familiar with the wikipedia rules in general, or even aware that there are rules. There are quite a lot of people who believe that it doesn't matter whether or not the site has a formal or informal tone, and opt to take an informal tone. Moreover, these people are unlikely to take any time to read the rules and familiarise themselves iwth the kind of tone they should adopt when contributing to an article.

Unfortunately, as well-meaning as their contributions may be, we, or I, will just have to put up with editing their contributions to fit in to wikipedia's accepted guidelines. Indeed, some of the most valuable contributors to this article may be quite elderly by now, and may well be new to the internet as well as just wikipedia. So I think we should be patient despite this.

Honestly I get the impression that I'm talking to myself here. Until someone else shows a real interest in this article I'm not going to be contributing to it anymore, or at least not significantly. I feel slightly mean for doing this, because this is my town and I've lived here for a long time so it would be wrong to abandon it, but in all honesty it's beyond me to do this article by myself. I just don't have the knowledge. In fact I'm pretty sure that some of the stuff that I've put there isn't right. --Badharlick 01:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree, the Redevelopment section alone is highly POV. I will be happy to help with this, but will need some time, as I'm a bit busy at the moment. Any ideas for current changes? Roche-Kerr 15:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Finished Cleanup

The article is basically a complete article now. It could easily be expanded further and there's room for that if any experts/historians wish to do so, but I think since it no longer needs cleaning up I'm good to remove the cleanup notice. Which I have.

In case anyone was wondering, the reason there's a section on Architecture is I think that on its own it's worth noting that Trevail was responsible for the design of the Thin End building. Otherwise I mainly wanted to bring up the interesting prominence of Brutalist architecture in the town. It comes from an era of modernisation which ultimately failed to achieve its own ideals, and St Austell is in many ways a microcosm of that.

It could use a photo of the town centre, maybe Aylmer Square (which I neglected to mention in the article now that I come to think of it) or perhaps Fore Street. I doubt I'll remember to do this so I'm leaving it up to someone else.

Comments are welcome on my talk page. --Badharlick 07:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Begun Cleanup

I have made some big changes to this page, and would appreciate any feedback, fact checks and amendments to errors. I will continue to edit and add to the article as time permits.

--Badharlick 01:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Have amended details relating to the publishing of the two local papers, and updated the Masonic information Vtr1781249 (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

General Wolfe

I see an anonymous user has added the General Wolfe to the list of pubs in the town centre - can anyone confirm if it has re-opened? DuncanHill 08:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that I've certainly never seen it. I know that what I put in about there being only 7 pubs isn't quite right though, and I also know that some of the "facts" on the food outlets aren't totally factual, but St Austell has so many food outlets that it's almost impossible to remember them all. What this article really needs is someone who takes an interest in the history of St Austell town. --Badharlick 05:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The General Wolfe is currently being used as stores for Adeba Toy Shop. There are far more than 7 pubs in St Austell - but about 7 in the town centre, though of course that depends on how you define 'town centre'. I will come back to this article over time as I get better information on the town and its history. DuncanHill 10:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I know which pub you mean now. I can't recall what it was called instead, but it certainly wasn't called The General Wolfe when it last closed. It had attempted to reopen a number of times under various names and a slew of managers, but obviously was not successful. As is typical in Cornwall, everyone ignores pub name changes except for me! I end up assuming that someone is talking about some distant pub I've never heard of when it's actually the previous name of one that I visit quite often. (generally speaking here, I never went in the General Wolfe)

On another, entirely seperate note, I'm going to remove the blabbering about the architecture. It doesn't read well, vaguely smells of POV, and I don't feel that the so called "Brutalist" architecture is anything more notable than the kind of sixties modernity that happened everywhere. I'll keep the little section on Silvanus Trevail though. --▫Bad▫harlick♠ 16:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning

This article could use some more cleaning to bring it up to scratch. I'll split up the bit on the redevelopment into sections on the plans, what's happened so far, criticism, and support, so that it's not such a huge block of text. I'll see about adding some photographs, plans, maps, and expanding the St Austell Brewery section. I believe an article on the brewery already exists so I may be able to draw some content from that and just link to it. --▫Bad▫harlick♠ 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvements

This article (which is also the town I live in) is in a mess (to be honest). I think keeping a more harsh watch on contributions made (and revert them if needed) would help. I've done a skim at it and noted some of the changes that could be made.

Article

• Change all references of "UK" to "United Kingdom" (increases the formalness of the article).
• Get rid of the "colloquially pronounced "snozzle"" part at the top of the article and put it somewhere else. Snozzle is used to say that St. Austell is boring to the point where it makes you sleep (apparently, or the impression given by me). It's just too negative to be up there at the start of the article. Unless anyone can provide a link (thus cite) and prove me wrong. (Not Needed)
• Change "St Austell does not have a town council but is the site..." to "St Austell does not have a town or parish council but is the site..." in the third introductory paragraph.
• Change (2001 census) to (according to the 2001 census). Link also needed (Office of National Statistics somewhere?) for citing on the population number.
• Get rid of the largest shops list in other industries and those large ones mentioned in the food section. There's nothing unique (the big ones, not the local ones) about the shops mentioned there (thus nothing more than advertising) and I don't see list of shops on other towns in Cornwall.
• Get rid of the St. Austell Brewery section and create a seperate article for it (if needed).
• Get rid of the Redevelopment section. It's a complete mess and needs rewording but perhaps not with the current text already there (my eyes treat it as one giant annoying paragraph which can't be edited) and not being very Neutral Point of View (NPOV) with a sentence like "The barren town centre looks like a town in the middle of a recession.".
• Does anybody care about Poltair School having a head teacher called Heather McIroy? To me it makes the article informal so should go in a seperate Poltair School article and merge the three paragraphs into one paragraph in the Education section.

I've lived in this town for 10 years, and I can safely tell you that "snozzle" does not mean that it is "boring", it's just the local pronounciation and is commonly used. I'm not going to cite sources to prove a point because that is a rediculous workload. I won't make any assumptions about where you're from (although it is tempting), but I will say this of your instance to request that absolutely every fact ever in the whole world be cited; unless it's in dispute, leave it. If it's not POV, or you can find nothing to prove that it's POV, then it's fine until someone who knows what they're talking about says otherwise. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 05:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I should have reworded that second bullet point a bit better (it is embrassing for me as I have been living in the town all my life and perhaps due to me not bothering to get out of the house much). When my mind thinks of Snozzle (I've only come across it when browsing social networking sites) it makes me think of the snooze button on an alarm clock but I don't think anyone else would agree with that. Anyway, I've crossed that part in the list out (along with everything else that's been done or should I write Done/Not needed in bold?).

As for that Redevelopment section (shouldn't it be renamed to Town Centre Redevelopment?) covered in a lot of [citation needed] (If I'm guessing right) tags I feel it's a little excessive (I feel the NPOV notice would have done just fine). I feel the whole section needs to be rewritten sort of like this:

• Introductory paragraph (or two) on the redevelopment, who is in charge of town centre redevelopment and the supposed benefits of the redevelopment.
• A paragraph (or two) on the original redevelopment schudele and how much the original redevelopment would cost.
• A paragraph (or two) on the criticism and problems with the redevelopment (long delays, over-budget, local businesses folding, etc).

I think the last last paragraph in the current redevelopment section should be moved into the main Economy section as it doesn't seem to be anything related to the town centre redevelopment specifically. --Kiri* 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

• Aylmer Square.
• Eden Project (possibly).
• Fore Street.
• China Clay tips.

Any other ideas? --Kiri* 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Have reworded the sentence about no town council, including wikilinks.DuncanHill 21:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Have also wikilinked the 2001 census, and removed the brewery section as it is covered elsewhere in the article - I do think the brewery needs an article of its own as well. Have done some minor copy editing as well. DuncanHill 22:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

England/United Kingdom

Because of the disputed nature of the constitutional status of Cornwall I have changed all instances of the word "England" to "United Kingdom". This is the most accurate geographical description and does not offend anyone. 82.46.61.58 (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the Cornwall guideline, Cornwall MUST be treated the same as anywhere else within the administration of England... Sorry, I know it may suck a bit, but that's the rules. Simply removing it from the lead doesn't make Cornwall something it isn't. Nationalists, find something more constructive with your time please. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the WP:Cornwall guideline is rather different from how places outwith Cornwall but within England are mentioned - the formula "county, England, United Kingdom" is peculiar to the difficulties relating to Cornwall and the coverage of it on Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say major towns and cities should be...mentioned as being in England. But Geographical elements are less important in there exact location. Cultural related articles should not mention England I think, as that comes across as inappropriate. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead picture

It's miserable and the perspective is poor. I know St. Austell isn't the prettiest town in Cornwall but we can do better than that... --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of pretty bits in St Austell, and the church is a very fine building indeed - but there aren't many "views" of the town, but I agree I'm sure we should be able to find a better pic for the lead. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

UK in lead sentence

I removed United Kingdom from the lead as clearly and unequivically advised by Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Lead. If the Cornwall project differs from this it needs to be brought in line.--Charles (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I do hope you are not going to ignore a stable guideline which was adopted to reduce what was an appallingly wasteful and heated series of edit wars. DuncanHill (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline (which is of course linked from the Cornwall Wikiproject header at the top of this page) and at the discussions linked from it. Then, if you still want to change the guideline take it to the Cornwall Wikiproject talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care about the local guideline. I am just suggesting it would make more sense to have it in sync with national policy.--Charles (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It would make more edit wars, which to me makes less sense. DuncanHill (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Overruling WikiProject Cornwall's consensus would mean increasing the effort needed to react to the edit warring.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Freemasonry

Does anyone other than Yummy Dummy belief that St Austell is somehow distinguished from other town/city entries by its masonic presence to the point where it deserves a whole section? ----Snowded ^TALK 12:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You will observe that I've incorporated it to include other Friendly and Fraternal Societies Yummy Dunn (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be having a revert war over the inclusion of the details of the St Austell masonic lodge. Rather than get hit for WP:3RR perhaps it should be discussed here.

The article is relevant in that it gives an historical account of a social institution, than has been in the town for well over 100 years. On the basis of the argument cited by some authors as to its inclusion, that could be argued for inclusion on the page for the Quakers; and for references to religion in general, indeed, sport could be excluded on the basis as well. Yummy Dunn (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it should be included, no precedent in other articles, and we don't list organizations such as the St.Austell Lions Club. Apart from the secretive nature of the masons today the Masons seem like a similar charity fund raising group.--Salix (talk): 13:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Several towns have mention of Masonic activity in their areas on there pages Yummy Dunn (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Freemasonry can not be compared to the Lions Club nor to the Rotary Club, as these are essentially charity raising organs, where as Freemasonry is a moral and philosophical institution, with benevolent arms. It has never been a "secret society", a secret society would be something like the Ku Klux Klan. Freemasons are no more secretive, than, say, the members of Carlyon Bay Golf Club Yummy Dunn (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"Was once a secrete organisation, now an organisation with secretes".^^ Anyway, I agree its inclusion is a little shaky at best. --Τασουλα (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of any topic can only ever be subjective anyway? Yummy Dunn (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Naturally, but the question is whether or not this is notable enough to warrant its own section on this article. --Τασουλα (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it any more or less notable than the references to the Quakers, which has its own article as well. It was written to be a neutral and as well balanced as one could be, and was meant to be informative. However, constructive criticism is always welcome, please feel free to air them on my talk page Yummy Dunn (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The building is interesting and already listed earlier in the article - no harm in a photo. The section remains excessive. YummyDunn please list the "several towns" to which you refer ----Snowded ^TALK 00:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this article takes place here, Yummy Dunn, not on your talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If I want discussion on my page, that is my prerogative, Mr Hill Yummy Dunn (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You do not own this article, and it is very well-established Wikipedia practice for discussion about an article's content to take place on its talk page, not on one editor's talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)  ::: That still does not preclude discussion from taking place on my talk page, I accept here is the main forum, but I noted I'm happy to receive constructive criticism on this topic (and others) on my talk page Yummy Dunn (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that, DH. Yummy, this article is on St Austell, not "Freemasonry in St Austell" or anything like it. I have no problem with the info you added per se, but whether it's appropriate to include it here. I think that it's giving too much attention to a minor subject in relation to St Austell. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've incorporated the Masonic element into a broader section on Fraternal and Friendly Societies Yummy Dunn (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Very poorly referenced, I don't see any independent sources, and some of those you have used a very old. You need to stop expanding the section (one which you are the only editor to believe needs to be bigger), and get into proper, substantive discussion here. DuncanHill (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What (in your expert opinion) is wrong with my references? Several sections on this page have very dubious or no references at all? Several books are quoted, they are all "Independent" works. The age of a publication is immaterial, as long as the information it imparts is still factually relevant Yummy Dunn (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would have no problem with a mention of the lodge building (although not listed, it is rather an attractive/quirky building), and the number of lodges meeting there. I do have a problem with the amount of detail about the lodges, and with it being a seperate section. The building is mentioned in the "Landmarks" section already (as Pevsner makes note of it) and I think that is where any mention belongs. A picture, in that section, would not go amiss. DuncanHill (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to add a picture, do you want the Art Deco interior or the exterior, (if someone will advise me how to add a picture to the text) Yummy Dunn (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to stop adding anything until consensus is achieved here, and then you need to respect that consensus. DuncanHill (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your hardly respecting a consensus, as you delete articles, before others have had chance to raise constructive and objective opinions Yummy Dunn (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to answer my question? Should it be an exterior or interior view (both have their merits) Yummy Dunn (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Trim the fat maybe. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I was about to link WP:WEIGHT, so the fat-trimming suggestion seems appropriate! DuncanHill (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• It appears that Yummy Dunn has chosen to ignore this discussion and keep expanding the section. I have reverted him. DuncanHill (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I've not ignored the discussion here (you should LEARN not to cast aspersions, Mr Hill), what I have done is added interesting factual historical information. You should let others review the article before deleting it again Yummy Dunn (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What you have done, is in the middle of a discussion in which most editors think the section was too large, is to enlarge the section. DuncanHill (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Agin, I dsuggest you read WP:BRD and then abide by it. DuncanHill (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find that I've 'cut and expanded' what any good editor should do... Yummy Dunn (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

[1] <--- Please stop with the accusations Yummy. FYI, I know very little about the Masons other than my own father being one, but I doubt it's very masonic to accuse. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I have made no accusations, my friend, only corrected a certain editor (and he knows who he is) on factual errors, and allowing his own prejudice to influence his editing. Yummy Dunn (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Here you accused Snowded of vandalism and "being a biased editor". DuncanHill (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That is not abuse, that was a statement of fact. Try looking up the word "abuse" in the dictionary. If Snowded feels he/she is not biased at editing, let him/her express themselves here Yummy Dunn (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies. You have, repeatedly, been given advice to do so and relevant links to help you. DuncanHill (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, you will see I have incorporated the Masonic element in an improved section Yummy Dunn (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have started a thread relating to this at ANI - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Awkward_editor. DuncanHill (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It gives undue weight to the topic and should be reverted back to the original short mention. --Bob Re-born (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would refer all editors concerned here to the closure of the ANI thread, and this edit by an uninvolved admin to Yummy Dunn's talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Largest town?

In the lead it states: St Austell is the largest town in Cornwall: in the 2011 Census (Office for National Statistics) St Austell had a population of 34,700. This doesn't appear to be backed up in the reference given and may well confuse several things. It seems to be referring to the town (ie civil parish) but uses a number for a group of civil parishes. That population number is smaller than Camborne-Redruths, so it's not the largest for an urban area. Bodrugan (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

according to the reference (Cornwall Council (2010) Community Network Profiles):

• St Austell has a Population of 30,800, Area (hectares) of 8,035, and Population density of 3.83.
• Camborne & Redruth meanwhile has a Population of 60,100, Area (hectares) of 12,082, and Population density of 4.97.

Bodrugan (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction in lead

In the lead we read that "St Austell is one of the largest towns in Cornwall: in the 2011 Census (Office for National Statistics) St Austell civil parish had a population of 19,958, reducing to 19,630 at the 2011 census" which makes no sense whatsoever. DuncanHill (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Population

The population figure in the article has varied widely recently. I would have thought that the 2011 census (ONS.gov.uk) would be the key source for this information which gave the PL25 postcode area a population of 25,538 in 2011. The www.cornwalls.co.uk website does not say where it gets its figures from (27,400 in 2013 apparently), and there is a figure of 18,700 that purportedly comes from the ONS but what geographic area that covers is unclear. Poltair (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Some figures my refer to the former unparished area, which includes the several St Austell parishes, others may be for St Austell civil Parish alone, or for the various types of "output areas" used by ONS. We need someone familiar with the mysteries of the Census data to make sense of this. DuncanHill (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• OK, I found this on the ONS Neighbourhood Statistics site, it gives a usual resident population for St Austell civil parish of 19,958 in March 2011. DuncanHill (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Nice one. That's just what I was looking for but got bogged down in postcode area statistics. Many thanks for that and updating the article. Best wishes Poltair (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

What I haven't been able to find is the 34,700 "wider area" figure. The reference given to a page on the Cornwall Council website is no longer available, and I haven't yet found where, if anywhere, it has been moved to. My hunch is that it is for the St Austell parishes. I'm not convinced it belongs in this article, certainly not in the lead. I'll remove it for now, but if we can find a proper source we can reinstate it in an appropriate place. DuncanHill (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Poltair:Sorry, I hadn't noticed that you had found the webarchive for the 34,700 figure, thanks and well done! DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on St Austell. 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/20140729194902/http://www.magakernow.org.uk/pdf/placename_masterlist.pdf to http://www.magakernow.org.uk/pdf/placename_masterlist.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=31822

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) 01:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Gibberish.

"Named after Saint Austol (Saint Austell is mostly unrelated),"...what is the parenthetical phrase supposed to mean? The place was named after the saint, just a different spelling.77Mike77 (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It was meant to mean that Saint Austol and Saint Austell were different persons. The article linked at the latter looked a lot like something someone made up, and was terrible sourced, so I have turned it into a redirect. I've removed the text in brackets from this article. DuncanHill (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you77Mike77 (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

St austell

St austell 88.110.230.135 (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)