Talk:Bradley Stoke

message: The nickname 'Sadly Broke' is well known in the Bristol area and residents of Bradley Stoke.
It can be considered to be an identifying feature of the development, which history recalls, was troubled by financial crisis in its early years.
Therefore it is justified to include the "Sadly Broke" reference. It is a neutral statement that is not particularly offensive to any of the residents since it refers not to them but the financial difficulties of the original developers, which coincided with the late 80s property crash.
Comments please on whether you think it is valid to include this reference.
--Dunk 17:17, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I support you. Althoughasptpasgosgjghsga. I don't see any obection to it. WP is different to "Britannica" or "En Carta" from the fact it is a community, and should be editable by all, I feel to compare it to such encyclopedic forms is unfair, WP:What Wikipedia is not states how it is not a paper-encyclopedia, and I feel this may be an example of that. However if this comment were to be seen as offencive by others, it's removal could be considered. Ian 13 20:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree it should be in there. In fact it might have been me that added it to the page originally... There's a wider point to be made here, apart from its historical veracity, that WP is not Brittanica, etc, all of which are very good reasons. There seems to be a tendency for people here to mistake interesting trivia, unusual writing styles, etc as POV, somehow. As a result there is a trend for articles to become more and more bland and dull over time, as new contribuors change things simply to eradicate these quirks, which overall do not alter the factual content of an article, only its style. I call it 'blandification' and I see it many articles. I think it should be resisted, though it's pretty difficult at times. If something is genuinely POV, or factually incorrect, by all means it should be changed - but simply changing a particular choice of words to another choice to eliminate more interesting language seems to me perverse and detrimental to the project. WP does not need to be dry. WP does not need to be a dull list of facts. All WP needs to be is true, and well-written. Graham 22:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I myself am relatively new to editing with an account at Wikipedia, but as long as interesting styles and facts are accurate, I feel it can only expand knowledge on a subject. I feel there is a great lession to be learnt. WP is very mixed in editors, but as long as it is accurate, I love it. Shame power corupts, and I think it may be the same here (just a hint). Ian 13 21:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I give in, but continue to disagree with the comments above. Firstly, I don't know how much that "sadly broke" name was used. I live only 5 miles from Bradley Stoke but, at the time, never heard the phrase used, Secondly, it does sound jokey and silly, whether the enclopedia is on or off line. However, I'll leave it there under protest - Adrian Pingstone 15:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was recently (well, 3 months ago) mentioned on a BBC National News article, as the nickname for badley stoke, when they were discussing falling house prices and rising interest rates. Also before that time, when I visited reletives in north england, they managed to pick up on the name, so it is quite well used. But I can see why it would sound inapproate. Ian13 (speak!) 20:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Sadly broke'

message: I'd like to reopen this debate. Bradley Stoke is not a town by any other measure other than it calls itself one.
Bradley Stoke has parish council which calls itself a "town council" and there is nothing to stop it doing so.
Historically a Town was somewhere with a charter for a market from the crown,  Bradley Stoke does not have a market or a market square, nor does the new building count either as this is not provide the same kind of public space. Consequently calling Bradley Stoke a town is misleading.
By almost all classifications and expectations of a town, I would suggest Bradley Stoke falls short other then postal address and population. For example, there is no high street, common public space such a market square or parkland, theatre etc, etc.... Bullgod01 14:35, 10 March 2008 (GMT)
I noticed that someone changed the article to say that Bradley Stoke is a town, rather than a large housing estate, but this was reverted pretty much immediately by Ian13 without any explaination why. So, what is the status of the place? It has a town council, doesn't this make it a town? What does everyone think?  
:I am also happy with it being called a town. I really should have added some explanation, however this article is quite inactive. The things I had a problem with were "new" since articles are designed to not reflect a relative time frame since we try and make it usable for the future without modification. I also disagreed with "PostalTown= BRADLEY STOKE". Postal Town is based on the prefix to the postcode, and BS is Bristol, and hence should be shown as such. The word large was also removed, and although this could have been better explained, compared to others at the time it was built, it is very large. Since I felt "purpose-built town" and "large housing estate" were pretty much interchangeable, a blanket revert didn't seem to out of place at the time. Feel happy to address any of these issues I have stated, or refer to it as "purpose-built town". Hope this clears it up. Ian¹³/t 16:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for replying, I agree that 'a new purpose-built town' sounds a bit silly, after all it's not like places become towns accidently, they are all purpose built. :) Maybe we should just stick to 'a town in South Gloucestershire'. I know about all about post towns now, thanks to having to check 12,000 of them on a database in work, and you're absolutely right about that, the post town is Bristol. Gasheadsteve 17:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wow, I want over 12,000 post towns :D Ian¹³/t 21:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Town or estate?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bradley Stoke. 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/20140407091418/http://www.ville-champssurmarne.fr/decouverte/commune.asp to http://www.ville-champssurmarne.fr/decouverte/commune.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bradley Stoke. 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/20080827203433/http://www.sadlybroke.com/2008/06/21/breaking-news-new-town-centre-is-named/ to http://www.sadlybroke.com/2008/06/21/breaking-news-new-town-centre-is-named/
*Added  tag to http://planning.southglos.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?action=show&appType=Planning&appNumber=PT05%2F1920%2FO
*Added  tag to http://planning.southglos.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?action=show&appType=Planning&appNumber=PT06%2F3687%2FF
*Added  tag to http://www.edubase.gov.uk/establishment/summary.xhtml?urn=134036
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202035032/http://www.bradleystokecs.org.uk/sections/information/heads_introduction.htm to http://www.bradleystokecs.org.uk/sections/information/heads_introduction.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified