Talk:Woodhall Spa

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Woodhall Spa article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Lincolnshire Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A few points[edit]

at the bottom of the infobox where it says "places in : UK England Lincolnshire" the Lincolnshire bit links to Leicestershire
im not sure if this is right but i believe that some coal was discovered but it wasnt anywhere near enough to make the mine viable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc26324 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee Park Swimming Pool[edit]

A new article Jubilee Park Swimming Pool has been created, as part of a project to create articles on historic lidos in the UK. If you have local knowledge please edit it.--Lidos (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lido is currently part of renovation works going on at Jubilee Park. The entire Park was bought by Woodhall Spa residents, from East Lindsey Council Dec 2010 and renovations are already under way. I think the Lido is still open in its original state at the moment but will be undergoing modernisation over the closed winter months, if I am reading Horncastle News right. Panderoona (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkstead/Help[edit]

Suggesting that the main part of the section on Kirkstead be moved to the Kirkstead page? It seems odd that there is a page for Kirkstead, and yet there is loads of information on Kirkstead on the Woodhall Spa page. Saw similar with the Railway section and moved most of what had been written over to the Woodhall Spa railway station page. This article really needs a lot of work, and too many things on it are repetitions of what has been said - such as the Water Rail Way being a footpath/cycle path which follows the old railway line making an appearance twice. Would really appreciate feedback. Panderoona (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it may be worth: I think your gut instinct is correct. It's probably better to summarize the information about Kirkstead and getting joined with Woodhall Spa. And any other section that you see more information than is needed because it's covered by another article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Information about Kirkstead should be in the Kirkstead article rather than here. I've just removed most Kirkstead information, but retained the governance aspects about the merger. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganzing information[edit]

I took a stab at reorganizing the information - with no change to the verbiage except to eliminate a duplicate sentence (railway closing in 1971 was in two places). Totally a style choice, I put the paired images together. If the changes don't make sense they can be reverted - the image changes are the last couple of edits on the article. I hope that it helps and that the information is under the right headings. Let me know if you'd like further help.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it certainly looks miles better for your effort Carole - well done :) Panderoona (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was mixed up. For instance the "Second World War" history was not under "History" at all but was hidden away under "Railways"! And the commercial information about present-day hotels was far too prominent near the start of the article. I've moved it under "recreation" (and there is an argument for reducing it in scope even there). Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinewoods vandalism[edit]

A claim of sexual assaults in Pinewoods is not supported, although a cite request has been added to it for a while. It was added during a multiple vandal attack by IP86.154.223.63 in 2010 - see here - but was not cleaned-up with the rest of the rubbish. I have added a comment to the users talk page - always a useful thing to do as it builds up a history for a possible later block.

There is no reference I can find for this assertion except in Wiki mirror sites - which is worrying as the mirror sites don't tend to update, so such stuff can be up on the web for a long time and can become apparent "fact" - just shows how vigilant we have to be. Acabashi (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good detective work Acabashi Panderoona (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your Kelly links appear dead from my end - it may be a temporary glitch but it would be worth checking back. Acabashi (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction text and image[edit]

An intro sentence in a reasonably developed article should sum up the salient (but not all, or the minutiae) aspects that define the place as described in the article – it didn’t as stood. There is a problem with the picture at the top of the article which again should be a visual broad brush, or a significant aspect of the place, not a particular detail, and a commercial detail from the edge of Woodhall at that. I removed a previous page head image of a hotel under the argument that it too demonstrated an obvious pointer to a particular commercial promotional enterprise that did not sum up what Woodhall was about – this one has the same problem. An image at the top of the article is best, to avoid undue dominance, to be inserted within the info box. But until a less partial image is found I suggest that this one be removed, just leaving the info box for now – I think there are enough images in the article now anyway, given its length.

The text under this image, and in other sections where hotels or roads are mentioned, were italicised – I have de-italicised under MOS:Italics. The Golf Hotel Aqua Sante Spa is also under suspicion of commercial promotion especially as there is no independent viable reference. I think it should go, with the whole “Spas” section, with an edited version of the text on “Woodhall Spa Hotel” moved under “19th century mineral springs”. The Golf Hotel image is fine as is, as the place has an historic context, but the hotel shouldn't show its present uncited Aqua Sante Spa promotion.

Having said all this, the article is, through all the recent edits, now in a much better state than it was.

Acabashi (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acabashi you are a hard taskmaster ;) I hope you know Im joking. Looking at it this morning, with the changes you have made, I agree its really starting to look like its getting there. Id also agree there is still a long way to go and especially in regard to unreferenced info. Im not really into sport so am a bit wary of that section - but I have noticed that they have a football club and a bowling club which arent mentioned. Perhaps a brief mention of all would be fairer, with perhaps a little more on the Golf Centre if its claims can be substantiated. With regard to the Geography Section Im thinking perhaps that should be renamed Parish boundaries as thats what it actually is. What do you think?Panderoona (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have been working on condensing further, and finding more cites etc taking a break this afternoon - Let me know if theres anything you dont like :) Panderoona (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed. I was working on the same sections and about to save when I got the edit conflict notice - one of the annoying things with WP. I would be careful not to add commercial sites as inline refs, such as with the Campsite and the Legacy Woodhall Spa Hotel - these are not considered appropriate as independent verifiable sources. I have copied my edits to my user page here if you want to look, and nick anything - you can try this yourself sometimes if you want to see what an edit would look like, as a word processor won't save all the Wiki mark-ups when copied across. I ruminated over how to deal with those hotels - they seem to slide into more than one section, and I suppose the new "development" sub heading was your way of trying to deal with this too - the hotels in this section are written like a list, which is a bit of a problem if it's not a proper list with bullet holes - which it shouldn't be anyway. My way of dealing with the loose "Victorian elegance - conservation area" was to put it into the intro. I toyed with the idea of adding a "landmarks" sub section to deal with all the disparate stuff, including the cottage museum and any other useful stuff from the Conservation area appraisal, but came to no decision. The removal of the "Geography" section was right, not in principal, but because it had nothing to do with geography proper - it was a walking tour for those who might know Woodhall anyway. We could add "Geog" back when we have found something relevant. BTW I see that from my end the links to Kelly still do not work. It's getting there. Acabashi (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya - sorry you got the edict conflict - I know how annoying they are!! Im not sure what to do about the Hotels bit - certainly some mention seems noteworthy since the whole place is built on its popularity as a resort. Theres not too much of a problem with the Victoria Hotel and the Royal, because they are both closed. But to include them because they are no longer commercial and ignore the others seems a bit unfair. Ive been trying desperately to think of another way of doing it and had a good look around for other links which Ive used where I can find them. I had a bit of a go at the sports bit - the only ref I havent been able to find is the St Andrews Trophy one, but I doubt that really needs to stay if we cant verify it.

Cheers as always for your help and input - Im not going to edit anything at the moment cos my families round but I couldnt resist a peek - Ill be back later and Ill have a look at your page then as well. Panderoona (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have managed to consolidate info in the "development" section to my own satisfaction - I cant say if its your personal choice or anyone elses and everyones free to change it but I feel personally that the conservation area bit and the hotel bit is best put there rather than the lead-header - at this point in time. That just being my personal choice of course, and I do defer to those with better knowledge and experience of Wikipedia, such as yourself. I have managed to find what I think might be reasonably unbiased sources for most of the Hotel info - the main exception being the Legacy Woodhall Spa/Eagle Lodge Hotel. Ive removed hotel info from places such as the Woodhall Spa memorial section as that really isnt the place for it. Ive tried to find reasonable citations for most sections. My biggest concerns now are the Kellys refs which as you rightly state dont appear to work well, (and I would consider losing them if I cant find a work-around) the section on the Manor - far too much info that cant be proven - and the Notable People section which I feel is way out of line - I mean Victoria Woods granny may or may not have lived there? If I were to be consider an editor would I want to back that up as notable? I think not. Panderoona (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly's, headings and notables[edit]

I can't find the text stuff cited in the link through to Kelly's; Kelly's is usually only a listing anyway. Any heading begins with a capital letter, all other words being lower case unless proper nouns - if there was a book, or some kind of recognised movement called "The Development of Woodhall Spa" then it would be OK, but I don't think there is in this case. I have reformatted the book ref text to WP style and added an ISBN. The Notables: it would be right to remove Wood's granny - she is not notable in herself and notability doesn't rub-off because you know somebody. Anyone who hasn't got a Wiki article is always suspect, although those who have significant honours, eg letters above, but not including, MBE could be considered notable by default, as can professors, even if they don't have Wiki articles, however, if external independently verified citations cannot be found for honours, notability or residency, removal should be considered for the non-blue-linked. Further, just because a "notable" is blue-linked does not prove residency or place of birth either unless cited evidence is found in the relevant article - if it's not, removal should be considered. Acabashi (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats really wierd cos I can definatly see it from here. Sigh. Perhaps I will just have to give up on Kellys all together, theres no point in it if others cant see it. I feel like most of its there now, but the notables does daunt me. I wonder how many will be proven to live or have lived there once I try and find them? Not many Ill bet. Im taking a break now bad shoulder ache! Thanks as always for your help and teaching :) Panderoona (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see the Kelly's now. Obvious non-notables can be removed. I will add cites needed against others and if after a while nothing is forthcoming from those editors with this article on their watch list, we can remove them. Acabashi (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents[edit]

I have removed Victoria Wood's granny - not notable, added inline cites verifying Woodhall Spa association for some notables, and where proof cannot be found, added a citation request. Any continuing to lack evidence for association will be removed - an unsupported claim in a blue-linked article is not evidence. Acabashi (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

high 5 Acabashi good job :) Yes Id worked out that just because a blue link made an uncited reference to something it doesnt mean its true. I guess we have done about as much as we can for now. Im really pleased with the result. Panderoona (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) - and thank you for all your good work. The old Kelly's has gone down again from my end, even though it linked earlier. I suspect it's a problem with the University of Leicester Historical Directories web site page. I suggest we keep an eye on it from both our ends to see if there is a continuing problem. The cite need not be externally blue-linked as long as the page/s in the references can be mentioned within the cites. If it is an ongoing web site problem someone will eventually add a ^{[dead link]} against it and it maybe removed leaving the information uncited. Acabashi (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear - User:Sitush did say he had a bit of an ongoing battle with the site because it is one of the few places that isnt user friendly in regard to linking. You have to convert to pdf format to save the actual page, and it would appear that its not always successful. I did find other links where I could. I think leave it for now it might come back and like you say, keep an eye on it. Panderoona (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Woodhall Spa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110811040832/http://admin.todaysgolfer.co.uk/Golf/courses/Top-100-Golf-Courses-in-the-World/The-Worlds-Top-100-20---11/Woodhall-Spa-Golf-Club/ to http://admin.todaysgolfer.co.uk/Golf/courses/Top-100-Golf-Courses-in-the-World/The-Worlds-Top-100-20---11/Woodhall-Spa-Golf-Club/

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Woodhall Spa. 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) 07:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Woodhall Spa. 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) 14:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Woodhall Spa. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329064244/http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/our-woods/Pages/about-this-wood.aspx?wood=4160 to http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/our-woods/Pages/about-this-wood.aspx?wood=4160

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) 04:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsburys[edit]

Sainsburys local is the best shop in woodhall spa. Sarah is the best shop worker because she’s funny and helpful. 2A00:23C8:C05:C001:3422:562:1D88:8B89 (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]