Talk:Bristol/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


Flag icons for twin towns

Cards on the table - I loathe flag icons on Wikipedia and think they are messy and intrusive, especially when used to turn perfectly good town-twinning prose into a bulleted lists complete with flags. For that reason I just reverted these edits by Attilios‎ (talk · contribs). Whenever I come across these loathsome little graphics I remove them and have never had my edits reverted, but on a major article like Bristol I think it would be better to get consensus. So are contributors OK with twin towns listed as prose, or do you prefer bulleted lists with flag icons? --Simple Bob (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. The prose form is what was asked for in the GA review and I think it is best to stay that way. Following the peer review, I am slowly working on the article with the aim of submission for FA status, so I think it should remain as prose. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It's too bad that you feel that way, but it's obvious that the bulleted format is also wanted. I think it should remain at a bulleted format with flag icons. By the way, I would think that you should reword some of your explanations for reverting edits. — comment added by L Kensington (talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Prose is preferred over bulleted lists at GA and FA reviews. The flags should not be included whether text or list - Wikipedia:MOSFLAG#Flags highlights areas of inappropriate use which I feel applies to twin towns, particularly "Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things." Therefore I would argue for their removal.— Rod talk 16:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting, the format of that section was hammered out in the thorough GA review and as pointed out flag icons suggest an unwarranted significance. As Rod points out bullet lists are also not a feature of GAs or FAs. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have reverted to the 1 September version as various apparently good faith edits have introduced unreliable references and have tended to remove many of the features that were present when this passed GA. Please discuss any substantial chnages here before making them. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

It looks like we need a new infobox image as File:City of Bristol.jpg seems to have been deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have found a new image for the infobox. Please discuss possible alternate images. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with SimpleBob's removal of the 'skyline' image, however the existing 'view from the Suspension Bridge' is almost as bad. Until someone comes up with something better, can we pick one of these as a replacement? RedSquirrel (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Well personally, i don't think any of those is a particularly good image. Will have a look through Commons, when I get a minute. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the edit SimpleBob. We live and learn. Rather surprised by your reaction JezHotwells; is it the subjects you object to or the quality of the images?RedSquirrel (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea of using something that involves the Clifton Suspension Bridge as to me that is the one iconic image of Bristol. The one here I like because it has good colour, less cloud over the bridge, and although the bridge is there it isn't the main focus of the picture. These two aerial shots aren't bad though - especially the first which covers a huge amount of the floating dock from Bristol Bridge almost as far as the SS Great Britain and shows a large part of the centre as well as College Green and Park Street. I'm less keen on the second but some might like it. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 10:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
My objection to these is that the quality of the images is poor.
  • the collection of conmtainers used by construction engineeers at the rioght of the bridge image is unedifying
  • the Great Britain image has truncated masta and bowsprit and name banner
  • the prominent feature of the Llandogger Trow image is a sign advertising tapas
  • the Bristol Parks image does really say much about the city
  • likes for the tethered nballoon picture
  • I think the Suspension Bridge is probably best prospect for a picture, but needs a better picture. I will see what can be done in the next week or two. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair points, JezHotwells. Essentially I was looking for an interim improvement, something 'tempry' to use the Bristolian word. I like the first two images SimpleBob put up, but I don't think they stand up in the limited size available in the infobox. Maybe something more like this would do it:

We now have this montage as a suggestion from BadboyIain (it would get my support)

In classic WP fashion, it has already been reverted from the article and tagged for speedy deletion. Way to go guys! Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I made this montage of Bristol with images from Commons. Let me now what you think --Bleff (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Coat of Arms alt text

The Coat of Arms image in the infobox (Bristol city coa.png) currently has alt text "Official logo of Bristol" (hover the cursor over it to see) - Bristol does have a logo, but it isn't the Coat of Arms (see www.bristol.gov.uk for the logo). Anyone know how to change the alt text? RedSquirrel (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about this logo with the white ship & castle on a red background with the words Bristol City Council around it? If so this is a modern logo rather than the heraldic crest. Are you suggesting using this image rather than the crest? The alt text appears to be auto generated by the Template:Infobox settlement & any discussion or code change would probably need to take place there & may affect many other articles. However it has made me wonder this article should use Template:Infobox UK place instead?— Rod talk 19:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that one. I wasn't actually suggesting using the logo in place of the coat of arms, though arguably there is a case for that given that BCC don't seem to use the coat of arms any more. Perhaps the coat of arms should be relegated to the 'history' section, or even bumped off onto the History of Bristol page? Either way, my point is that the alt text is wrong to call the coat of arms a logo. Seems to me that the alt text ought to be associated with the image and should be capable of being corrected there, but I'm by no means an expert in wikipedia arcana. Talking of which, what are your reasons for preferring Template:Infobox UK place ? Incidentally, according to this article the thing that used to be on the sides of the buses is neither a coat of arms nor a crest - it's an 'achievement'. Either way it isn't a logo. RedSquirrel (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
My preference for Template:Infobox UK place is only for consistency with other towns & cities in the UK, however checking WP:UKCITIES I see Bristol is specifically listed as an exception.— Rod talk 08:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Well that would seem like a good enough reason to leave the infobox as it is. As to the issue of the logo vs the crest/coat of arms/achievement, I am firming up in my view that the modern logo should be used in favour of the historic crest. I see Edinburgh has both; that just looks messy to me. Any opinions? RedSquirrel (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The logo is for the city council and would therefore be appropriate to a separate article about Bristol City Council. The coat of arms is for the city and is therefore appropriate for the article, which is primarily about the city, not its council. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
"Bristol City Council" currently redirects to Politics of Bristol perhaps it should go there?— Rod talk 11:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Good idea. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you're right, Simple Bob - I think the logo is just the modern version of the coat of arms, both being owned by the City Council. This article would seem to support this RedSquirrel (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that the featured article on Bristol's second nicest suburb has that city's coat of arms as the illustration to the 'Governance' section, rather than having it in the infobox. That makes sense given that the coat of arms is granted to the local governing body, not 'the city' or 'the people' in some vague sense. Given that the coat of arms appears to have been replaced by the logo in Bristol, surely we should use this rather than the coat of arms which is now of historical interest only? While in the infobox, wouldn't it be better to have a view of the Suspension Bridge, rather than from it? Seems to me it's a bit like Uluru - the view of it is stupendous, the view from it is a bit dull.RedSquirrel (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

See thread above with regards to infobox illustration. It would be good to get some for of consensus as ther are many potential candidates for such an illustratiobn. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, and apologies if I'm getting a bit cross-threaded. For my two penn'orth, the infobox photo has to be unique and obviously recognisable - Suspension Bridge (of rather than from!), SS Great Britain, view up Park St to University Tower for example.RedSquirrel (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Population Correction

The current suggestion that the population of Bristol is over one million is grossly over exaggerated.

Did you read the intro properly? Population is stated a 433,000. The figure of 1 million is for the larger urban zone, which is a much larger area than the city itself and is properly cited. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Map change

I have reverted that change of map by User:Dr. Blofeld. I think that this should be discussed here. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If that's problematic no probs. Anything wrong with it? Its an Svg.. File:Bristol UK locator map 2010.svg♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In an ideal world, it would be good to try and get some consistency on this point across the UK (or, at least, England) city articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think Dr Blofeld's map has a nicer and less dated look to it than the previous one. It's not a strong preference though. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nilfanion has made/is making svgs for the British cities to match the maps currently used in the town and village articles by county..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Comparing the old style to the new style there are a number of improvements, which become much more noticeable for other districts than they do here: Other areas are shown, as is the sea. The boundaries are significantly more accurate. The files are SVGs, making them easier to edit. And the colour scheme is compatible with the broader Wikipedia standards, so the maps of the UK are more consistent with maps of elsewhere, as well as the location maps used by Template:Infobox UK place. Compare File:South Hams UK locator map.svg to File:DevonSouthHams.png - the old map doesn't show Plymouth or Torbay, or which bits are coastal, making it much less informative. With regards to this article - the inclusion of Wales is a plus :)

The specific problem for Bristol is its status as a ceremonial county and as a city. The Bristol map is consistent with the maps for the other ceremonial counties such as Somerset or West Yorkshire. The districts also have a single consistent style, whether they are unitary authorities or not, the maps for Birmingham and Plymouth have an identical format to Horsham and West Somerset. This same format can also be extended to civil parishes eg Anlaby with Anlaby Common.

Bristol is treated as a ceremonial county here, on the grounds that ceremonial county status is more significant than unitary authority status. If the map style used for Birmingham is preferred, then Avon could be used to give a similar layout. As there are about 400 districts it will take time to get the full set uploaded, but a fair chunk of Southern England is already done.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, it looks like consensus here so I have reverted myself. I feel that it would have been best to have asked before changing and I also note that Avon ceased to exist in 1996, after a mere 22 years of existence so has no relevance here. The boundaries of the city, unitary authority and ceremonial county are identical. This also applies to Newcastle, I believe. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that Nilfanion's statement that "ceremonial county status is more significant than unitary authority status" is highly debatable and dubious - and I say that as someone who has frequently taken the line of supporting the mention of ceremonial counties in articles. Has this approach been discussed centrally anywhere? The boundaries shown on the map bear little relation to current local authority boundaries, and - if there has been a consensus to use them, which would surprise me - surely at least require some explanation in a caption. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I did miss out the important half of the statement really: The maps for the districts show the district-in-county, so Plymouth in Devon, Southampton in Hampshire etc. As Bristol is a ceremonial county, there isn't a county that contains it (apart from the defunct Avon). That has the effect that the methodolgy breaks down in this one case. The articles about the counties are about the ceremonial counties - including any UAs - so the ceremonial boundaries are the suitable for maps in those articles. For consistency with those, that is what the Bristol map uses.
Given Bristol's situation a different map may be preferable as a base: File:English metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties 2010.svg or File:English administrative divisions 2010.svg for example.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, as the boundaries of city, county and UA are the same, I see little difference between those and the map added by Dr. Blofeld. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the purpose of the map is to show Bristol's location, but surely the map used should be chosen on the basis of "least surprise", and on that basis I would expect most readers to be most comfortable with one of the local authority maps (though, as a side issue, the depiction of some rivers on those maps is very odd). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll adapt the base to whatever is preferred, I'd imagine the first I mentioned as that's the one closest to the prior map? :) My big concern with the map (which is why I didn't add it months ago) is that the highlighted area is small at the size used in the infobox (~25 pixels of 75,000!), it has to be more prominent. The base image covering a smaller area, or overlaying a pushpin could work - any other suggestions appreciated. (With regards to rivers - the map shows the coastline as defined by OS, it would be OR if I cut out the tidal portion of the Arun because it "looks funny". Including the non-tidal Severn, Thames etc would mitigate but could end up overwhelming the point of the maps).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Population figures & LUZ

In the lead, we state that the LUZ for Bristol has a population of 1,000,000+ but the source given for this only gives this figure for an a area it called "the West of England" (which appears to be the old 'Avon' area). Do we know that the LUZ and Avon are coterminous? In the absence of a source which says that I've { { cn } } tagged the LUZ part of this sentence. If we can tie these two up, great - if not, then this part of the article needs rewording. SP-KP (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The LUZ is defined here as Bristol, BANES, North Somerset & South Gloucestershire. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't see the definition on that page - is it on one of the sub-pages? SP-KP (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is on any of the spreadsheets that can be downloaded from that page. Furthermore the population of the Bristol LUZ (1,071,000)can be seen on the EU Urban Audit dataset - just look at the second table. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 12:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The edits you made fix the immediate problem. Thanks. I feel that some readers will still come away with the impression that there is contiguous urban area of 1 million people centred on Bristol, though, which isn't true: places like Bath, Weston-super-mare and so on, are included in the LUZ, but are separated from Bristol by large swathes of countryside. We've got a similar issue at the Cardiff article at the moment, where one editor is trying to claim a "Cardiff urban area" of 1.4 million people, which includes Swansea and Newport! SP-KP (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Newport, but not Swansea, I think. There is also the ONS "Bristol urban area" figure of 551,000 here, based on the continuously built-up urban area, so that it includes, for instance, Kingswood and Bradley Stoke but not Yate or Clevedon. So long as the different definitions are made explicit, I don't see why different figures for differently defined areas can't be included in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Twinning

hi there - not sure where the info came from but Bristol is definitely not twinned with Lecce and there are no plans to twin as far as the twinnings association office is aware. Perhaps someone could change this as we are receiving requests for info about it. thanks. Alix Hughes, BITA co-ordinator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.11.203.58 (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard Gregory

As noted in the to do list Richard Gregory died in 2010. He is mentioned only once:

"The city was birth place of Colin Pillinger,[223] planetary scientist behind the Beagle 2 Mars-lander project, and is home to the psychologist Richard Gregory."

Perhaps some consensus could be reached as to changing the tense of the statement or removing it? Mike 05:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Cheers! Mike 19:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting demographics resourced

http://www.bristol.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/council_and_democracy/statistics_and_census_information/The%20Population%20of%20Bristol_July%202011_v2.pdf

Published by Bristol City Council in July 2011 using ONS figures. Might be worth working some of it into the demographics section. --Bob Re-born (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

The intro section states "Historically within Gloucestershire". I've tagged this as WP:DUBIOUS since, other than for very brief periods, the city has been self-governing and not tied to any county since it was founded. The article states that Bristol was founded around 1000AD. As of the Royal Charter of 1155, Bristol was already outside the county system. The Historic counties of England to which "Historic" links, were only formalised by the Normans after the 1066 invasion. Bristol spent less than 100 years as a formal part of Gloucestershire. Any association with the pre-Norman shire system is completely misleading as Bristol just did not exist as a settlement prior to c.1000AD.

I propose to replace this sentence with: "Founded circa 1000CE, Bristol was briefly part of Gloucestershire before the city received a Royal Charter in 1155 and was granted County status of its own in 1373." Andrew Oakley (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Your post contains a number of assertions, which may or may not be correct, in whole or in part. I think there may be a need to tighten up the wording, but whatever is said needs to be based on reliable sources. I can find sources stating that Gloucestershire was formed in the 9th or 10th centuries, and extended as far as the Avon. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Gloucestershire appears to pre-date Bristol, which would mean that when Bristol was created it was on Gloucestershire soil. c.1000AD is pre-Norman, so Bristol was founded in late Saxon times. That means its not misleading to tie it to the pre-Norman system, as it was founded in the pre-Norman system, but careful treatment is needed there.
Also, saying that it ceased to be part of Glos in 1155 seems unlikely, as the granting of a Charter doesn't imply removal from the county. Bristol would still be covered by the county-level institutions of Gloucestershire (eg the High Sheriff). This is similar to the modern day situation when a unitary authority is carved out of a county: It ceases to be part of the county in many senses, but is still tied to it.
Given this, I'd expect there are references saying "Bristol is in Gloucestershire" from the 11th through to the 14th centuries (hardly a "brief" period); and furthermore its possible that there will be 15th C references saying that even though its not strictly true - just as you'll find references to Bromley being in Kent today.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
"[In the fourteenth century]...the boundary between Gloucestershire and Somerset [was] the old Saxon boundary between the ancient kingdoms of Mercia and Wessex. The Gloucester courts ruled north of the Avon, Somerset courts to the south, yet Bristol was obviously a single town and had functioned as such for more than three centuries. Towards the end of the long reign of Edward III the merchants put forward a petition for the whole of Bristol to be a self governing unit, to become effectively a county in her own right. This was a radical proposal, unprecedented in England... The charter was granted in 1373..." (Peter Aughton, Bristol: A People's History, p.28) So, the land north of the river, which became part of Bristol, was part of the shire of Gloucester from the time that institution existed - 9th or 10th century - until 1373. That is what the text should indicate. I agree with Nilfanion that the 1155 charter is of no relevance to this. The wording needs tightening up a little - but is it really needed in the lead anyway? Would a brief explanation in the History section be better? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
A better paraphrase of the history section seems the way forward to me. Something I'd want to see addressed better is the Somerset aspect: The article doesn't make it clear when Bristol first formally included land on the Somerset bank. I think that might be 1373, as associated articles suggest that is when Redcliffe became part of Bristol, presumably as part of the 1373 charter (no sources on that). If that's the case then up to that point Bristol was a purely Gloucestershire town, but in 1373 expanded to include adjacent settlements which were in Somerset and was removed from both counties.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
That's correct - "In the reign of John, Bristol began the struggle to absorb the neighbouring manor of Bedminster, the eastern half of which was held by the Templars by gift of Earl Robert of Gloucester, and the western half, known as Redcliffe, was sold by the same earl to Robert FitzHardinge, afterwards Lord Berkeley. The Templars acquiesced without much difficulty, but the wealthy owners of the manor of Redcliffe, who had their own manorial courts, market, fair and quay, resisted the union for nearly one hundred years. In 1247 a new course was cut for the river Frome which vastly improved the harbour, and in the same year a stone bridge was built over the Avon, bringing Temple and Redcliffe into closer touch with the city.... The charter of 1373 extended the boundaries of the town to include Redcliffe (thus settling the long-standing dispute) and the waters of the Avon and Severn up to the Steep and Flat Holms..." [1] The text of the 1373 charter is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Two alternative proposals, then. First to remove any reference to Gloucestershire from the intro section and shift to a longer clarification in the History section. I think that is my preferred option. Second to change the bit in the intro section to "Covering areas once part of Gloucestershire (north of the Avon) and Somerset (south of the Avon), Bristol was granted County status of its own in 1373." with references to Aughton and the charter itself. Thoughts? Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a strong view, but the articles on History of Bristol and History of local government in Bristol could be improved at the same time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"City of Bristol" definition

"City of Bristol" redirects to this article, but nowhere is the "City of Bristol" defined. I am trying to find the definition of the actual "City of Bristol" that is run by Bristol City Council. The article seems to define Bristol as the built up area comprising the City of Bristol and parts of South Gloucestershire, which is a separate county. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.233.75 (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The City of Bristol is the area administered by Bristol City Council - so, it doesn't include areas like Filton, Patchway, Cribbs Causeway, Bradley Stoke, Emersons Green or Kingswood which are administered by South Gloucestershire Council. The article is a little confusing about this in a few places - particularly the "Boundaries" section - because, in common parlance and in some definitions of "the Bristol urban area" (as defined by ONS, for instance), those areas are seen as part of "Bristol". Legally and administratively, however, they are not part of the City. Parts of this article could be tweaked to make the definitions clearer - and someone should draw a map to show the boundaries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Dialect and other areas needed to move this article towards FA

I've had a go at sorting out some of the referencing issues on this article today, however there are still several deadlinks & sections needing citations - particularly the dialect section. Can anyone help with these? Also what else do editors feel would be needed before the article could meet the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria?— Rod talk 20:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Tower?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/Robert_Ricart%27s_map_of_Bristol.png In the center of Ricart's drawing there is a tower in what appears to be a town square. Does anyone know when this was demolished? --98.246.156.76 (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Bristol High Cross - moved to Stourhead in 1780. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Square brackets for ITV News Westcountry - are they intentional?

While doing some checking for overlinking & other syntax errors I came across [[ITV News Westcountry]] in the Media section. It looks as if the square brackets are intended to be included - but I can't understand why - any ideas?— Rod talk 20:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a misspelling of ITV News West Country, which I've fixed. -- Dr Greg  talk  20:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference issues

When trying to clean up the references on this article I have found a few which are deadlinks. Currently numbers:

  • 47 Lottery Fund rejects...
  • Now sorted.— Rod talk 19:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • 90 Local Rainfall Map
  • 203 Bristol Mountain Bike Club
  • Now sorted.— Rod talk 19:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • 220 Bristol Sikh Temple

Can anyone find alternatives for these, or find archive versions which could be linked?— Rod talk 07:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have replace the deadlinks with alternative sources which support the same information.— Rod talk 19:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There are also a few problems with references to books:

  • I've added some "page needed" tags, if anyone can provide these that would be great
  • W.R. Childs, 'Ireland's trade with England in the Later Middle Ages', Irish Economic & Social History, IX (1982) is this a book or journal? I'm unable to locate this and it as it needs formatting properly and page numbers.— Rod talk 08:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Now sorted.— Rod talk 18:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In the Dialect section there are several claims for which I'm having trouble finding citations. If anyone can help that would be great.— Rod talk 12:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe I've now resolved the citation issues I had identified - if anyone spots any others please say.— Rod talk 09:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Bristol's urban heat island effect

The article says "Like many large cities, Bristol experiences an urban heat island effect, with night-time averages at Bristol Weather Centre, in the city centre generally being just under 2 °C milder than those at Long Ashton, just outside the urban area" and I have put a citation needed tag on it. Can anyone find a source for this? The article I found says there is no evidence. If nothing can be found can i remove it from the article?— Rod talk 20:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reworded this and used the citation.— Rod talk 09:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

What else is needed for a FA nomination

Following recent work on the references and copy editing by others, I have requested a peer review, but if anyone can spot anything else which is needed before a FA nomination please add comments here.— Rod talk 19:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It has been suggested in the peer review that sport should be removed from the history section as sport has its own section, however this is a major change and I would like to get the opinion of other editors before doing it. What do you think?— Rod talk 20:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Colour scheme in lead montage

Some edits today seem to have added colour to the montage of images in the lead infobox. Do people think these are an improvement on the previous version?— Rod talk 19:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

OMG. No. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
As no-one else seems to be interested, I've reverted to the previous image. The later one - undiscussed - had bizarrely and unnaturally over-coloured images. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Dialect

I live in Bristol, and even I think this could do with a translation to RP. "Cassn't see what bist looking at? Cassn't see as well as couldst, casst? And if couldst, 'ouldn't, 'ouldst?"

My best guess is "Can't you see what you're looking at? You can't see [it] as well as you could, can you? And even if you could, you wouldn't, would you?" As far as I know my translation is right - and one of my favourite songs is "Thee's Got In Where Thee Cassn't Back'n Hassn't" [2] so I'm not unfamiliar with the vocab - but the only problem is that I can't imagine what context you'd say that in. --77.102.114.99 (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

GDP in US dollars

I note that GDP has been added to the infobox in US dollars which doesn't seem right when the other data is given in UK Pounds. Is there some requirement for international comparison or could this be changed to UK currency?— Rod talk 07:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It has been added to a number of UK location pages. It depends what the source says as the figure will be dependent on the exchange rate on the day the data was created. However for a number (all of) them the data is incorrect. The data added to Portsmouth is actually labeled in the source as Portsmouth-Southampton with a population of 1.365m. As the two cities have a combined population of ~500k the data is inappropriate to be used against either city or as a conglomeration. Similarly the Bristol data covers a population of 1.126m, again far higher than the population of Bristol. As it stands I'd suggest that the information should be removed from all articles until what it actually covers is understood. Nuttah (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with removal for the time being, because the meaning is unclear and an unwarranted authoritativeness is suggested by including it as a 'cut-and-dried' figure in the infobox. William Avery (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks I will revert - the wider discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#GDP in US dollars as this applies to several cities.— Rod talk 08:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Bristol

Hi, I would be grateful if you could comment on a nomination relevant to this article:

Any comments would be appreciated.— Rod talk 07:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Collage

Was there a previous discussion to remove the captioning of the collage? I have passed through Bristol, and I would presume that those who know the city even less would be curious to what the structures are. I've seen this before on other articles, albeit some in a neater way than others '''tAD''' (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC) '''tAD''' (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence in Arts section

Hi. I edited the lead sentence in the Arts section but it is still a hot mess and needs a simple tune-up:

Bristol has a thriving current and historical arts scene. Some of these have merged with modern venues and digital production companies while still being based in old buildings around the city.

Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is my latest stab at it:

Bristol has a thriving current and historical arts scene. Some of the modern venues and modern digital production companies have merged with legacy production companies based in old buildings around the city.

Have at it. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Bristol Pavilion

Since I live in Bristol I started to read the article with interest, but got no further than the reference to the "Bristol Pavilion" which it claims to be a current tourist attraction. On following the link I discover that this was a temporary structure at Ashton Court put up for a five-day festival in 1936. If no-one objects I shall remove this reference. Redcliffe maven (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it claims it as a current tourist attraction but I see your point. More detail is on Ashton Court so I agree it is reasonable to remove it from the lead oft his article.— Rod talk 09:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Banksy image

Is it really WP:FAIRUSE to include a Banksy image in this article? Fair use on artworks, as indicated by the template on the file, is normally restricted to an article on the work of art itself, or the artist. Not a city article...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The use of File:Banksy-ps.jpg was discussed (at length) on the first FA nomination and moved from commons to wikipedia. These "graffiti" images are allowed on commons, but due to objections by User:Nikkimaria and extensive discussion by others (including User:MichaelMaggs) it was resolved with the creation of new templates etc.— Rod talk 10:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that link, Rodw, that's interesting to read. Evidently that discussion dealt at length with the question of whether it could be licensed under CC, but the question of whether it satisfies Fair Use was never really addressed - everyone sort of implicitly assumed it was fine for that. I'm no expert on this matter, and it seems unlikely that Wikipedia would get into any hot water over this, but it did strike me that the current fair use template mentions three possible articles in which the image could be hosted, (on the artwork, the artist, or the school of the artist), none of which are satisfied. Congratulations on the featured article, by the way... I used to live in the West of England myself, and it's good to see high quality work covering the area.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm no expert on image licensing either. What are you suggesting should be done - presumably on File:Banksy-ps2.jpg (as that is the version being linked to from this article) where it says "To illustrate the contribution Banksy has made to the street scene of the city of Bristol" under "Purpose of use". Any guidance appreciated.— Rod talk 13:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction on county status

"The town incorporated neighbouring suburbs and became a county in 1373,[17] the first town in England to be given this status.[18][19][20]"

"The original Diocese of Bristol was founded in 1542,[35] when the former Abbey of St. Augustine (founded by Robert Fitzharding four hundred years earlier)[36] became Bristol Cathedral. Bristol also gained city and county status that year.[37]" '''tAD''' (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Well spotted! I checked the reference given for 1542, and it does not mention county status, saying "granted that Bristol thenceforward should be a city, and made it an episcopal see". The charter of 1373 is well known for its grant of county status. I have removed the erroneous claim for 1542. DuncanHill (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
(e/c) Source 37 (as above) in fact states that county status was acquired in the "47th year of Edward 3" - which equates to 1372/73. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge

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:

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod talk 15:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Uncited notable residents

A section on "notable residents" has been added to this article. None of these entries has any citations and the entry on The Yogscast is too long for a summary article. There are hundreds of people at Category:People from Bristol and there is no indication why those included should be considered more notable than others - there is no clear criteria for their selection. If all those in the category were all included (being considered notable because they have wp articles) this would overwhelm the article. I have found on other articles these sections are always difficult and propose removing the section.— Rod talk 06:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Given that the references for Wesley and Müller linked to their respective Wiki pages, what additional citations would you accept for these? It is common knowledge that Wesley founded the Methodist movement, and that Müller founded the Ashley Down orphanage without asking a single person for a penny. I added the section having seen a similar section on a page for another town. If it bothers you that much, then do remove it, but I would appreciate being told what sort of citations I should have given.Silver Shiney (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
If this section is to be included I would expect references to reliable sources which include the information that the particular person is "from" Bristol. I would suggest that others such as Elizabeth Fry, Michael Redgrave, William Wills, 1st Baron Winterstoke, Cary Grant, Tony Benn, Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence, Baroness Pethick-Lawrence, Edmund Burke or even Banksy or Damien Hirst might be more "notable", and specific to Bristol, than Müller or The Yogscast - depending on your particular interests. We are not even saying those born in the city just "notable residents". Without a clear criteria we could end up with hundreds of people in this section.— Rod talk 15:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
My point exactly - how much more notable would the two I've put up can you get? You still haven't said what "reliable sources" you want cited. If you reject the links to the verified Wiki pages, then, by logical deduction, you must delete those pages as well.
How on earth can that vandal Banksy be deemed more "notable" than Müller, whose legacy has impacted and inspired thousands around the world. Most people have heard of Cary Grant - are you seriously suggesting that some sort of citation needs to be included for him? Surely not!!!
As I said, the two examples I've posted have links to Wiki pages containing all the verification that you could possibly want.Silver Shiney (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Wiki articles can't be considered relaible or used as sources for a claim. Something like a quality newspaper article, book etc—
All I'm saying is that different people would consider different people might consider certain individuals more "notable" or worthy of inclusion in the list than others. I suspect that more people would have heard of Banksy than Muller & associate him with the city. If Cary Grant were to be included I would expect a source saying he came from Bristol.— Rod talk 15:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying about different people's ideas of "notable" and certainly wouldn't gripe about the inclusion of an infamous vandal. However, by the same rules that you are basing your argument on - namely a book - these are cited at length on the article on Müller and were accepted as such.Silver Shiney (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
We shouldn't expect a reader to go to another article to verify the claim, it should be cited where the claim occurs.— Rod talk 18:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
But we should expect him to go and find a book?Silver Shiney (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
For somewhere the size of Bristol, this should be a separate list article. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Possibly - I merely thought, having seen a similar section on the article for another town/city, it would an interesting addition to the Bristol article. Anyway, it's gone now, so problem over! Sorry for getting it so wrong...Silver Shiney (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bristol. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Areas of Bristol?

Should the following remain within Category:Areas of Bristol?

They are not Category:Wards of Bristol. But then that is why we have additional categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bristol. 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:

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) 00:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bristol. 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:

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) 23:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bristol. 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:

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) 08:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bristol. 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:

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) 07:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bristol. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 05:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bristol. 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:

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) 15:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bristol. 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:

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) 05:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bristol. 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:

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) 06:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bristol. 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:

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) 15:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bristol. 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:

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) 08:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Third sentence of opening paragraph

"The city borders North Somerset and South Gloucestershire, with the cities of Bath and Gloucester to the south-east and north-east, respectively." If we are talking about current administrative areas, it also "borders" ("adjoins" would be better, in my view) Bath and North East Somerset. But including that wording would look odd. I also question whether it's necessary to mention the cities of Bath (much smaller, 13 miles away) and Gloucester (also much smaller, 35 miles away) in the lead, as though they are very significant in a summary of information about Bristol - they are not. Perhaps the only thing that is worth mentioning is the fact that Bristol is located between the (historic) counties of Gloucestershire and Somerset - so, something like: "The city lies between Gloucestershire to the north and Somerset to the south." Any comments? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of any objection, I've made that change. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello computerland

I wish to make a visit to Bristol. Is it possible to ascend the Cabot Tower while remaining free from an experience of the effects of vertigo? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Non portare il cactus (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

No absolutely not! (Vertigo sufferer who tried) Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Claims of Bristol being a "Major City"

Bristol is the 11th largest city with Manchester, Birmingham, London, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Liverpool being much larger. So it is not a major city. No reliable source to clarify this other then a university report and a gcse site. Which are far from useful.RailwayJG (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Bristol is considered 'capital' of the southwest region - size is relative and it's certainly a major city compared to the others in the area, definitely considered as such by local people I would say.Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Just because Local people claim it to be doesn't make it credible. I could say Batley where I live is the best place to live in Kirklees but it would be debatable. Yes it is a major city in theory but is the 11th largest. Manchester Liverpool Birmingham London and Cardiff-South Wales are much larger. Bristol is big and rich in history but is not deserving of being called a major city which is subjective. Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Leeds don't being with major in their titles. It says a city and either borough or part of. Bristol was in Avon County with Bath, South Gloucestershire, North Somerset and North East Somerset. Major is not reliable as only a university and some local people call it major. And I would argue with the term major as only second to the population itself is South Gloucestershire at 285,000 and also forms a small part of Bristol itself. So I would argue that city, ceremonial county and unitary authority are formal enough. Major could be put further down but not in the main lead...as it is 11th largest and below the top 10...RailwayJG (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree the term is subjective and if there is no WP definition of what we call a 'major' city then it's just a moot point. Part of the reason I think of it as important is historic really - when it was a port - Bristol got split when the harbour moved to Avonmouth as the leader says - previously third largest tax receipts. Not so much a major city as a very significant area geographically.Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

See here [3] for earlier discussion. What next, Norwich? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
We should avoid terms that are grandiose as being particularly weasel-like. It's why we don't say "Ronaldo is a great footballer" we let the article convey the significance. Which is you then run into the next issue which is people sandbagging the lede with relatively unimportant data to try and emphasise their point. Both should be avoided. Koncorde (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No date

I usu. come to Wikipedia to ascertain a single fact of the most fundamental sort. Beyond belief, most of the time Wiki is so incompetent that it fails. Not that this article is incompetent, but:

I came here expressly to ascertain what year the Great Western Railway reached Bristol; and the first year one could travel by rail between Bristol and London. You tell me whether you see that fact here.

While you're at it, go to the article on the GWR and tell me whether it's there as well.

Jimlue (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are developed by the community. Best practice, if you see that a certain fact is missing, is to use reliable sources to research it and then add it to the article. So instead of criticising, go fill fix that gap in the article. 10mmsocket (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if Jimlue has ever heard of Google? Literally five seconds on there gave me the answer. Amazing! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The article Edward Colston has been nominated for 'Good Article' recognition

Editors of this article may wish to review Edward Colston in case there are any significant omissions that may need to be rectified first. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the fact he was a slave trader and recognition shouldn't be given to him in any way? DragonofBatley (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
We have articles on heroes and villains. We even have one on Herostratus, which stinks but is unavoidable. NebY (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
And the Germans, who bombed my granny's chip shop in the war. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
What, all of them? Bibliosporias (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bristol/Archive_3&oldid=1190455333"