Talk:Newport City Council

Fair use rationale for Image:Newport City Council logo.gif

Image:Newport City Council logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Chartist mural

Whatever we might think of the council's actions, I simply don't think it's sufficiently important or weighty a matter to be mentioned on this page. We have a whole article at Chartist Mural, as well as mentions at Newport, John Frost (Chartist).... Yes, there's currently a lot of popular anger, and yes, it's reached some national media - but, per WP:Recentism, will it still be an encyclopedically defining aspect of Newport City Council in ten years time? I know what the campaign group thinks (I've already been called "a bit of a prat" on their Facebook page), but I'm more interested in what established editors think. My view is that this page should deal, boringly, primarily with history and constitution. If I'm in a minority, so be it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is currently pretty poor, hardly sourced at all. When the council's actions reach national press attention I would think it's not a bad thing to mention it, though definitely not in the lede intro. My addition was fairly succinct, reflected what was said in the news sources and gave the council's reply too. Sionk (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There's also this weeks article in The Guardian, which seems to show this is not a two-day flash-in-the-pan. Sionk (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Ghm. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a local culture campaign soapbox. Who's to say it won't be a two-week flash-in-the-pan? That said, however, when was the last time NCC got a mention in the national press? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've just fully protected the article for three days due to the edit warring. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to be fair to everyone - it can't really be described as "edit warring". Just a minor disagreement. I've made my point and will defer to whatever consensus emerges. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle. In ten years time (or even less), I doubt this matter will be seen as particularly pertinent to this article, unless it looms even larger in the national press over subsequent weeks/months (which seems unlikely). Having this covered in the Newport article seems appropriate, but here it verges close to making some kind of anti-council point. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, not of any significance in the history and current/future role of the council. It would be a big page if we included everything council related that is 'in the news'. Also the current wording lacks balance - there is no mention of the redevelopment of the area and the substantial economic importance of that.Pwimageglow (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not just in the news, but in the national news. I'm unaware of this happening before, well, not since Newport was made a city in 2002! The redevelopment of the city centre would be something to go in the Newport article, wouldn't it? Sionk (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Largely uninformed reporting in popular media doesnt make it relevant to this page eg 'cannabis found in council flower beds', 'Newport County FC given freedom of city. The story is against wiki recentism policy and irrelevant on this page. Its covered elsewhere in wiki as stated abovePwimageglow (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought those floral tubs were very attractive. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I know that other Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be used as comparisons, but even so it's interesting (and perhaps surprising?) to note that even the Westminster City Council article doesn't yet mention the much more newsworthy Homes for votes scandal, though it is on a "to do" list on the talk page... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that puts this small but bitter fiasco into perspective? Except that Newport can't really be compared to Westminster. (But that HFVS is a huge politically much weightier article in its own right and quite shocking that it's not even linked to...) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)