Talk:Yate/Archive 1

message: There doesn't seem to be much distinction between Yate and Chipping Sodbury, does there? Are these districts or neighborhoods within a larger geographical unit?
:I live in Yate. There certainly is a distinction between Yate and Chipping Sodbury, they are two towns that happen not to have any countryside lying between them. So it's not very obvious when you have left, say, Yate and are going through Chipping Sodbury.
:However, the populations are very different, Yate has approx 25000 people and Chipping Sodbury has 5000 people. They are both part of South Gloucestershire (previous to that they were both in Avon).
:Adrian Pingstone 11:15, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinction between Yate and Chipping Sodbury

message: Dunk, I’ve read your additions to Yate and clearly you have a downer on the town and want to express that in the article. Unfortunately for you we are writing a Neutral Point of View encyclopaedia. (Incidentally if you had a talk page I could have put this there so why not set one up?) Here are my thoughts on what you’ve written:
MUCH NONENCYCLOPEDIC LANGUAGE:
- “Yate is far removed from the rolling estates of Highgrove” (rather obvious surely and hardly needs stating!)
- “Quadrant of cold windswept alleyways” (not true any more and I go over there once a week so I guess the wind has changed or new buildings are blocking the wind). 
- “the shiny new establishment sits nicely among the plethora of cheap discount shops” This is silly nonsense, we have exactly one discount shop called Discount Plus, roughly opposite Boots.
ERRORS OF FACT:
-  a quadrant is not the same as quadrangle, which is obviously what you meant.
- Yate is not one of the three most deprived wards, if you had honestly quoted Reference 2 you would have said Yate(West) which is not the  same as all of Yate because Yate(West) has only 31% of the Yate population. The three wards are Yate(Central) with 7010 people, Yate(North) with 7200 people and Yate(West) with 6430 people, making a total of 20640 people.
NOT USING A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW:
- “years of neglect” (assuming that’s correct) has to be balanced with some info on the current reasonably pleasant shopping centre.
All that lot in only seven paragraphs! Well done!
Adrian Pingstone 18:28, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Dunks contribution

message: 1. Item about Prince Charles was created by original author. This was amended since it misrepresents Yate by attempting to create an association between it and Prince Charles where one does not exist.
2. QUOTE "Design, look & feel of the shopping centre was felt to be cold and windswept" Key finding: Ref [1,2]
3. QUOTE "The range of shops in Yate town centre was incomplete, respondents felt that there were too many card shops and shops that looked “cheap”." Key finding: Ref [1]. Furthermore there are 382 references to the wish for a McDonalds in a 97 page document Ref [2]. 
4. Quadrant is correct in this context.
5. The other areas aren't far behind. All are below county average Ref [3]
6. QUOTE "[An improvement] strategy was produced for Yate Town Centre in 1998 when the shopping centre was owned by MEPC. MEPC were not looking to invest in the shopping centre so there was little opportunity to turn the strategy into action." .. this is neglect.
7. Above quotes are from Goverment consultative documents. This inherently means that these views are held by a large proportion of people, including residents. Although not necessarily neutral, it constitutes a valid body of opinion and is therefore definitely Encyclopedic.
Perhaps your judgment is clouded because you live there ?
===References===
[1] [Gloucestershire Government Consultation Report Summary]
[2] [Government Consultation Report Full Version]
[3] [Gloucestershire PCT]
Dunk 23:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Points for Adrian

message: [1] [Gloucestershire Government Consultation Report Summary]
[2] [Government Consultation Report Full Version]
[3] [Gloucestershire PCT]
Dunk 23:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Dunk, my judgement is not clouded even though I’ve lived in Yate since 1977. I can recognize a POV (point of view) article when I see one, no matter what the subject!
From your reply it’s clear that you don’t understand the idea of encyclopedic language so I'll have a go at that first.
LANGUAGE
The idea is that we try to use the sort of English that would be found in another encyclopedia like Encarta or Britannica. The two phrases that are unacceptable to WP (in the context of this article) are shiny new establishment  and plethora of cheap discount shops. Those phrases would definitely not be found in the works I’ve mentioned.
FACTUAL ERRORS
You have completely failed to answer my point on the three deprived wards. This is what you said:
According to the DETR index of multiple deprivation, Yate ranks among the top three most deprived wards in South Gloucestershire. 
I repeat: Yate is not one of the three most deprived wards. If you had honestly quoted Reference 2 you would have said Yate(West) which is not the  same as all of Yate because Yate(West) has only 31% of the Yate population with 7200 out of 20640 people. So  Yate must be changed to Yate(West) in the article!
I’ll let the quadrant/quadrangle pass, although I'm sure the reader will not know what quadrant means so it needs changing somehow.
LACK OF NPOV
You are stating some info about Yate of many years ago which is fine. But you must balance this by info on the modern town because the cold, windswept and years of neglect aspects of the shopping centre have now changed (for the better).
Your point 7 really gives your agenda away - although not necessarily neutral!!!
DISTORTION
You say plethora of cheap discount shops. I’ve explained that this is plain wrong, there’s only one!
You quote  [An improvement] strategy was produced for Yate Town Centre in 1998 when the shopping centre was owned by MEPC. MEPC were not looking to invest in the shopping centre so there was little opportunity to turn the strategy into action." .. this is neglect.
I could not possibly get your interpretation of “this is neglect” fron the quote.
IRRELEVANCE
Why have you devoted a full paragraph to McDonalds, hardly a main feature of Yate!
All in all, a thoroughly poor article that needs a rewrite. I haven’t time now because I do almost exclusively illustrating on WP but I’ll leave your version alone for the moment. Please will other people add opinions below. Adrian Pingstone 09:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: REPLY TO DUNK

message: I am having a discussion with  Dunk concerning my opinion that his  Yate article is not NPOV and is written in a  nonencyclopedic style. I would appreciate any comments, please put them on the article’s Talk Page. Thanks
Adrian Pingstone 16:00, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks a bit arch, but entirely valid. I take it you don't like the fact that it makes the place look rather a shithole? I'd suggest that the remedy for that would be to come up with further facts that mitigate the picture. -- Jmabel 23:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I rewrote it a bunch after 1st comments. Arch, huh?  :-)  See its talk page. Elf | Talk 00:49, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's arch? --80.177.214.204 01:00, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Per M. Webster: "marked by a deliberate and often forced irony, brashness, or impudence". I'll give credit for that to the material rather than to my (probably incomplete) edits.  Elf | Talk 01:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From the village pump