Talk:Jurassic Coast

message: This the difference between the UK and GB very hard for even people in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to grasp - to say the Coast was the first natural site in GB is correct, but confusing when you look at the list of Heritage Sites in the UK lists. Unless the subject is specifically related to GB rather than the UK then I feel it should remain showing as the 2nd in the UK. --C Hawke 06:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you do people a great disservice by saying they can't distinguish between Great Britain and the United Kingdom, as I think the vast majority of people in the UK can.  Besides it's actually the third natural World Heritage site in the UK after The Giants' Causeway and St. Kilda, or are sites with joint natural and property status not counted? BigTurnip (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; most people do know the difference, and if they don't, they can click on the link and see. I suppose, if the sentence read 'The second wholly natural WHS in the UK', or 'the first wholly natural WHS in Great Britain', the sentence would be correct. The current sentence would also be correct if it was made clear that just natural sites are included. Rossenglish (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe me, large numbers of people do NOT know the difference in the UK, and when you add in all the people world wide, who think Scotland is a part of England - anyone who has read Bill Bryson will be familiar with tales of shocking knowledge of world geography within his homeland.  As to the people of the UK, I speak from a small position of knowledge having worked in the geographical field for many years.  Ask 10 people to define the UK and I doubt 25% would get it 100% right, and before you dismiss this, can you both honestly (and without cheating now :-D ) tell me if the UK includes Isle of Man, Scilly Isles, Isle of White, Channel Islands and Lundy.  And then add in the positions of Gibraltar, Falklands.  And what about the British Isles?  There are many terms which get mis-used.  But I think te actual sentence doesn't actually add that much, so it probably best removing it.--C Hawke (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... If we avoid the situation by sticking with the UK rather than GB, that the sentence would be correct if it had a qualifier stating that it is the second 'just natural' rather than mixed? I would be happy with this change (in bold): "Chartered in 2001, the Jurassic coast was the second wholly-natural World Heritage Site to be designated in the United Kingdom." Rossenglish (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.--C Hawke (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The fact that people are not adequately educated in a matter is not cause for warping one's presentation. I would also like to ask if some of the links at the bottom are not link spam. To me they appear to be.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.201.26.159 (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Surely the point of Wikipedia is that if people don't know the difference they can click on the link and instantly find out.Diomedea Exulans (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: GB Vs UK

message: What is this supposed to mean "This coast is an offshore bar." That means nothing to me. If no-one steps in to defend that wording I will delete it in a few days. Invertzoo (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't make sense to me either, so I've removed it. It was added by an IP last December (diff). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree. I live on the Jurassic Coast and have never heard of this term.  Mind you I wouldn't mind a "offshore bar" during the summer!! Thanks to PCW for removing the silly statement. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Offshore bar" ? 

message: Yesterday evening, UK time, (1 March 2014) I found that various articles about particular locations along the Jurassic Coast themselves contained a substantial amount, often an over-balancing amount, of non-specific, wholesale general information about the Jurassic Coast itself.  But some have been reverted, which I find strange.
Given that this Jurassic Coast article itself already exists, the wholesale replication of non-specific generalities out onto such (supposedly) specific articles seems to have little point, especially as the articles themselves, quite rightly, all (or almost all) mention that their locations are on the J.C. and all also refer to List of places on the Jurassic Coast.  So the reader is already led towards general information, in the correct places, should they wish to find out.
These locations are also on the English Channel; should we also add wholesale paragraphs of the repeated general information about the Channel to these articles?  Presumably not.
These locations are also in Devon and Dorset; should we also add wholesale paragraphs of repeated general information about their respective counties to these articles?  Presumably not.
These locations can also be reached by sea; should we also add wholesale paragraphs of repeated general information about marine transportation to these articles?  Presumably not.
These locations are part of the shoreline; should we also add wholesale paragraphs of repeated general information about this to these articles?  Presumably not.
These locations are all subject to tides; should we also add wholesale paragraphs of repeated general information about the workings of tides to these articles?  Presumably not.
So... given that these locations are all part of the Jurassic Coast, should we also add paragraphs of repeated general information about this to these articles?
Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree with this. I'd also add that by not repeating the JC paragraphs in each of these articles, it allows more appropriate information to be there: e.g., instead of the JC paragraph in the section Chesil Cove#Geology, there should be a paragraph on the local geology of Chesil Cove; instead of the JC paragraph in the geology section of Church Ope Cove, there should be information on the geology of the cove (which, I might add, is very interesting); one could carry on. Rossoh (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the deletion of existing information and/or the continuous deletion of existing references from an article before modifying with a better wording and/or before adding any new information and/or without substituting the refs by means of a new reference is an un-improvement (!!!) Please add new information and/or better references before making such deletions... ...eg please see Tilly Whim Caves with a new proposal... friendly greetings --Huligan0 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulk text in related articles 

message: The Jurassic Period was named after the Jura Mountains on the European mainland, not after this section of coastline.  The article gives no explanation of by whom and when the term "Jurassic Coast" came to be applied. — QuicksilverT @ 20:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As it covers the Triassic and Cretaceous periods as well, the name Jurassic Coast is likely to have been a marketing term to capitalise on the popularity of the Jurassic Park franchise.165.120.121.75 (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that this coastline has a particularly good, if not complete, representation of strata formed in the Jurassic - hence the name. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of name? 

message: Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?
The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, like this one.
The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.
Work on any of the items at:
*Core articles
*Missing article hotlist
*Missing photograph hotlist
or other articles relating to the area.
There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:
*Bristol (Day 1-3)
*Cornwall and Scilly (Day 4-6)
*Devon (Day 7-9)
*Dorset (Day 10-12)
*Gloucestershire (Day 13-15)
*Somerset (Day 16-18)
*Wiltshire (Day 19-21)
To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod talk 16:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The West Country Challenge 

message: I am intending to rewrite this article as part of the West Country Challenge. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "rewrite", as opposed to normal editing? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

text: I am hoping that you intend to make incremental changes that other editors are able to scrutinise, rather than replacing the whole text with something new, which is much more difficult to compare and hence makes the whole process unnecessarily difficult. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am working on it in my sandbox in readiness for the Dorset part of the West Country Challenge mentioned above which starts on 24 August. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be much more helpful to other editors if you make the changes incrementally in article space, then they can be studied relatively simply. If you replace the whole article with a brand new one, that studying process is much more difficult. I don't see why editors should have to watch your sandbox, plus in the future all the incremental changes that you may be making there will not be in the article history - instead there will be a sudden change. I remember there were lots of problems when you did something similar to the Tree article a while ago - please don't let a desire to compete in a challenge make it more difficult for other editors to monitor changes, either now or in the future. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: . It was just because of my experience of rewriting the article Tree that I decided to mention my plans here. I get criticised either way! In fact when all the furore died down, the article Tree was much as I had rewritten it (a great improvement on the original IMO) and we later improved it further to GA standard. Why not come join the challenge yourself? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just announcing on a talkpage that you're going to wholly rewrite an article doesn't make it any easier to assess the changes being made. My point is not whether you tell people what you're going to do or not, but that you make incremental and easily assessible edits in article space, rather than making all the changes in a sandbox and then replacing the article in one sweep. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

text: It's unnecessary - just make the changes on the article, rather than hiding them away in a sandbox. I don't understand the advantage of doing it that way, but there is a definite disadvantage. What's the point? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Article rewrite

message: Where does the name come from?  This needs to be included.68.150.86.232 (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Right now the info-box shows a map of Egypt and the red dot for the location is off the map. I can't figure what's wrong from the page history, so if anyone reads this.... Agnul (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The map is of the United Kingdom and looks satisfactory to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug or vandalism? 

message: Where connected sets of articles share a common feature, such as geographic locality, there is a usually a footer template to provide a convenient overview of, and quick access to, other related articles.  But the Jurassic Coast locations lack such a template.  Would it be advantageous to have a "Jurassic Coast" template?  The initial contents and structure might be similar to the article "List of places on the Jurassic Coast".  It might even, in due course, replace that.  Thoughts? Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have prepared an initial version in my sandbox, based closely on the "List of..." article.  I propose introducing it in the next few days. Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

text: I have created the template.  I have also edited a few articles (from the beginning of the list) accordingly: adding the template and removing the corresponding reference to the old "List of ..." article. Let me know (here) of any issues.  Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should there be a "Jurassic Coast" footer template? 

message: The current title of Man of War Bay seems to be perhaps one of the poorest choices for that article. So there is a discussion in progress Talk:Man of War Bay to rename it. Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Man of War Bay]]: discussion over name 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion