Talk:Thanet District

message: This category only included one name, the railway engineer Thomas Webster Rammell, so I expanded it with the more notable names connected with Thanet. However, I've just noticed that the Ramsgate and Broadstairs pages have their own 'notable residents' sections, though Margate doesn't - is it worth scrubbing the famous residents section on the Thanet page entirely and just assigning everyone to one of the three towns? Pitt the elder 10:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a fair bit of repetition and the section was getting unwieldy so I created a separate article with content moved from Thanet, Ramsgate, Broadstairs:  List of people from Thanet.  Pgr94 (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Thanetians 

message: An IP editor is making substantial changes to the article with little regard to WP guidelines.  I have tried numerous times to contact him/her, but the IP number keeps changing.  There is a similar situation on the Broadstairs article.  Should we request that Thanet be semi-protected which would prevent anonymous editing?  We could cancel the protection as soon as the IP editor registers.  Does anyone agree/disagree? Pgr94 13:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done that too on a few occasions but then sometimes good material was getting lost.  It would be better the editor became contactable than be put off altogether by the reverts. But I completely agree with you that it is a pain to have to clean up after him/her. Pgr94 17:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This page has been totally locked.  Is this the intention?  --Lord Matt 15:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I requested semi-protection but the administrator went for full.  I don't know why. Pgr94 15:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well done.  You might want to consider moving Broadstairs to semi-protect too as it was full-protected for the same reason. Thanks.  Pgr94 16:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for page protect? 

message: inward migration needs to be linked.  Ideally we also need some sources for the claims.  Can we have a citation needed tag.  Thanks --Lord Matt 15:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links needed on locked page 

message: I've made an edit to the bullet point under future.  I've possible been a little clumsy with the level of citation and so this might need to be thinned.  Also I have added a fact tag to the statement that it was the first structure to get grade 2 listing status - I don't doubt it but I'd like a primary source.  
In addition to this I feel the scenic railway might merit it's own page.  There is enough material on it out there and it does seem to be notable.  What do other editors think?  
--Lord Matt (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Scenic Railway (Dreamland)?  I agree that this detail is a bit excessive for an article on Thanet; I'd suggest it's more suitable in the article on the the scenic railway itself.  Pgr94 (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scenic Railway Fire 

message: Ian Fleming's James Bond novel "Goldfinger" mentions the Bond villain's home and metalworking plant "Thanet Alloys" being in the region, near Reculver. 007's visit there revealed that Goldfinger was using his plant to make gold body panels for his antique Rolls Royce, using the car to smuggle gold.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.206.238 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goldfinger Lived there 

message: Hello. The editor Watling changed the placename section of the article the other day to downplay the very common theory that Thanet is a Celtic name. Instead he promotes a theory that Kent in Roman times wasn't Brythonic-speaking, like the rest of southern Britain, but in fact spoke a Germanic language, and that the name Thanet derives from that. I think it is a fascinating theory, but nonetheless I've deleted it and reverted it to something more like the original. This is because (a) the theory that Thanet is a Celtic name is very widely quoted whereas I can find no reference for the theory that it might be a Germanic name. (b) the theory that it is Germanic depends - as Watling says - on the theory that the Belgic tribes spoke a Germanic language - this too is a theory for which I'm unable to find any references apart from other recently-edited Wikipedia articles (c) If Roman Kent was Germanic speaking rather than Brythonic speaking, then one needs a way to explain the utter lack of any mention of this fact in ancient sources, and also to explain the existence of numerous other Celtic placenames across the county.In any case, if this theory is based on Watling's own investigations, it falls under the WP ban on original research. Watling, by all means put it back in, but please only if you can supply a reference to a credible book or journal article. Dodo64 (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On that note, the assertion on Celtic origin you have left in also needs a citation, in line with wikipedia policy, otherwise i'm tempted to say we'll also have to delete that under WP:NOR.  OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A similar set of changes was made by the same editor (without citations) on several other pages.  If this is a serious contention them it needs to be discussed centrally rather than warred on multiple pages.  --Snowded TALK 12:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placename debate 

message: I am fascinated by the history of these three articles. I have written to Hamletpride pointing out that the merging of Isle of Thanet with Thanet, which he carried out in spite of two editors disagreeing with it, was an error, since the two are not mutually comprehensive - not least because one has a history only since 1974; the other way back in geological time! Not all of the Thanet District (and there is also another article for Thanet District Council comprises the island. I am working to restore the situation as it was before the merge, which was not done too well since it resulted in several repeating sections, anyway. IMO the Thanet page is then superfluous: a District only needs one article. Peter Shearan (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: just spent hours revising this article to include only matters pertaining to the Thanet District Council - saved the page and within 24 hours it had been reverted. Now it refers - like it did before - to more about the Isle of Thanet than to the modern District. In addition, all the work I did to make it more in line with Wiki Style - eg removing lists; putting things into better prose; adding further references (it still says "no references") has been undone. I am, to put it mildly, UPSET, and am asking the perpetrator of the revert to explain his action. Peter Shearan (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Thanet]]/Isle of Thanet (merged)/[[Thanet District Council]]

message: Here are comments from Peter Shearan left on my talk page (they are more appropriate here):
Why, oh why, could you not have checked with me first before reverting the article? I have tried to be patient, but really: this article is about the Thanet District, which began life in 1974, and so could hardly have had all the things happening to it that you believe. I have put all the information - and more - into the revived (by me!) Isle of Thanet (IoT) article, which is where it belongs. That has a history stretching back some 7000 years when it first appeared as an island. Take a look now at the IoT article and you will see what I mean. 
Have a look, also, at all the other articles in Kent on District Councils, and you will see that few of them carry information about what was before 1974: certainly not to the degree that appears here, and very often much less. I have literally spent hours making sure that what I have said refers simply and solely to the Thanet District - and you have undone all that work at a stroke! In addition it is not set out in the style of a good Wiki article - far too many lists; and the Geography section is pathetic - there's more to Thanet than beaches (which is out of date anyway - there's now ten in 2008); and why could not move the great list of future happenings (again often frowned upon in Wiki) be included under Economy (and again - there's more to that than shops!).   Again, there is also an article called Thanet District Council, which repeats much of what is said here. I attempted to make that article a bit more rounded, too - I trust you haven't reverted that as well! I inserted notes in all the talk pages as to what I was doing, but you obviously haven't read them. Please come back to me so that we can discuss this.
Peter Shearan (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have completely misunderstood what I have done! If you were to see the result of my labours you will see that that is exactly what I did - giving good verifiable references and all. What the revert did was to lose all the other information I included as well and got us absolutely nowhere: the un-Wiki STYLE content is still there. I still hold by my contention that, like all other District articles in Kent, the history previous to 1974 needs only to have a reference to its prior life - and that is precisely what I did. Why should this one be any different? I also feel that I did correctly by addressing the editor who did the revert, and feel that he could have answered me, and not brought this out like this. I am, to put it mildly, most annoyed. Peter Shearan (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why don;t you stop protesting and come back with a proposal - major changes of this nature will always get reverted if you don't agreement.  Especially when you need to get consistency accross a range of articles .  --Snowded TALK 16:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess because that is what I had done, and wasn't given the opportunity to explain before my work was reversed! Complaining is not my thing - I just want to see a better article than hitherto. This is my proposal - virtually the same as I did before ... and the history stuff all had gone into the Isle of Thanet article, and was not simply swept away! Tha "range of articles" are the District ones where, for example, Maidstone, Ashford, Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks all have this style, this consistency: separate articles for the town and district. In this case it is an island.  Peter Shearan (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   Look, what you need to do is to outline the changes here and get agreement before jumping into the change.  It may well make sense, but gain consensus first --Snowded TALK 05:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Thanet 

message: I still find this puzzling. I would wish to know on what basis the proposal I made was contested. My sole purpose was rationaliuse the article, mainly in order that it did what it said on the tin - ie that it was about the political entity that is the Local Government District of Thanet. The article as written in no way compares with other such articles in Kent - cp Sevenoaks, Maidstone, Ashford, Tunbridge Wells - which do just that, and have an entirely separate article for the town after which they are named. Of course there are additions that can be made to those, too, such as talk of the economy of the District; its demography, but not things more properly dealt with elsewhere. That “elsewhere” is usually the main town, but here it just happens to be an island. That island does not constitute the entire area of the District, in spite of the lead paragraph saying that it does.
In order to bring the article into a more Wiki-style format, I have used the list given for Writing about settlements, since there is no special one for districts. It does however give an editor the chance to see what information might be included. 
Following on from that, almost the entire couple of paragraphs headed “Political history” and “geographical history” (what is the difference?) refer to the island itself, and more properly belong there, and that is where they now are. I took the view that the two articles were meant to be read as a whole. 
The History of the political entity that is the District of Thanet begins in the late 19th century with the setting up of Thanet Rural District Council. There is a sentence in the middle of theGovernment para (Wiki prefers Governance) which says just that. Using that, and with slight additions, the paragraph would then read: 
*==History==
The Isle of Thanet is the major part of the Thanet District. Formed over 7000 years ago and separated from the mainland by the Wantsum Channel, it has always borne the brunt of invasions from the Continent. A Thanet Rural District had existed from 1894, with the Local Government Act of the time until it was abolished in 1935 to form part of Eastry Rural District. The current District was formed in 1974, by the addition of the area over which was once the Wantsum Channel, including the settlement of Sarre. 
This would lead readers straight to the more comprehensive history of that part of the District having a far longer history (and IoT did not arise because of the English Channel - it was far earlier than that). 
Governance should then follow: it is what the article is all about - a local government entity; and then Demography (why we have to use a United Nations figure puzzles me - the district website is surely better as a source?). There is great deal of talk about the Economy of Thanet, which needs saying, but in one place - and with pertinent references (the whole article lacks those at present, although my suggested rewrite does not). The long piece under Health (which, like much else in the article uses bullet points, frowned upon by Wiki) should be linked there, since that is its purpose. Economy is far more than just shopping (as the article seems to suggest) -  it can well include agriculture and tourism, without encroaching on the IoT article).
Climate is unlinked to anything else in the article - what does it say? What it might say is that it led to the development of the particular agricultural regime, and to the tourist industry - but it doesn’t.
Far too many lists. Each paragraph should be a piece of prose, easily transformed, as I have shown in my (twice rejected) rewrite. Mostly they are put in without comment or proper lead-in as to their importance; the railways and roads have articles to which they should be linked; and the final paragraph is also not to Wiki standards. Any future happenings are of dubious merit, unless linked to what is happening now. My rewrite includes many of them in the economy paragraph, showing how things are being changed by the District Council to alleviate its unemployment problem. This idea comes directly from the District Plan - not mentioned at all here! In any case many of them belong with their respective articles - eg the Margate plans (not connected here, two separated entries). The beaches are mentioned twice - for two different years ( an editor not reading the article first) - no comment as to their importance.
A paragraph Notable people from Thanet would obviate the need for the See also; and the Offshore Wind Project is mentioned in the text. 
In truth I find this rather frustrating to have to go through this; but if the convention requires it because of an objection, then here it is. I should still like to be aware of the basis for that objection though. Peter Shearan (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be important for the lede to clearly point to the articles with the history on them and to make sure than none of the history here is lost (ie a partial merge).  If that was done I would have no objections --Snowded TALK 15:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Thankyou. Peter Shearan (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I moved the missing bit of history for you  --Snowded TALK 05:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Outline of proposed changes to the article

message: The fact tag indicated that a fact check on the hogh teen pregnancy rate was long over due. I would this  BBC article on the subject and Wales was attributed with the highest teen pregnancy rate. I did find taht the UK has the highest rate in all of Europe  but could find no grounds for supporting the claim that Thanet was such an anomaly that award might go to Hackney  according to the Times Online (UK). In fact it is unlikely that figures would exist below the county level. Therefore I have changed the sentence to say it has a high teen pregnancy rate which is likely given the BBC article but as I found no mention of Thanet or Kent I fact tagged it afresh and will remove the sentence if facts can not be found.
Other edits include fixing a cut off sentence about building work and then reworking it a little. I am not possitive that the 2007 figure is accurate and it is in dire need of a fact check or that sentence might need to go too. --Lord Matt (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  health 

message: This information has become out of date and may in the months that follow change again (who knows but by-elections are like that with hung councils). However I cannot for the life of me figure out the code system used to add this snippit of information to the info box and I consider myself quite advanced with wikipedia stuff. --Lord Matt (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political control of council 

message: Substituted at 07:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Should the Climate section be moved to Isle of Thanet? JayTurnr (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate