Talk:Wells, Somerset

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWells, Somerset has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 24, 2010Good article nomineeListed

Speculation[edit]

This article contains an inordinate amount of pure speculation! Can anyone confirm or deny any of the claims? akaDruid 16:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This article gives the population of the City of London as 8000, whereas the City of London article itself says less than 9000. I don't know which is more accurate. Madda 10:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wells is certainly generally considered to be the smallest city in England, since London is only a part of the largest conurbation in England and the city (as opposed to "The City") is usually considered to be the whole of Greater London, as in any other world city. -- Necrothesp 17:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using what is considered to be a city globally also doen't work as definitions vary and, in some jurasdictions, an urban area with incorporated governing body and that covers towns in the the UK which are not considered cities. It needs to be specifically defined as the smallest city not within a surrounding conurbation, simplt saying smallest city "apart from the City of London" without clarification is confusing to any reader who may not understand the dintinction between the City of London and the greater conurbation. Dainamo (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

England's smallest city[edit]

As it stands just now, this section is simply a load of shite, sorry but it is:

It is England's smallest city with a population of around 10,000. It is the second smallest city in the UK after a city in Wales, St. Davids, and the third smallest city in the world (the smallest city in the world being in America)The square mile of the city of London is acutely smaller than Wells. Thus Wells is in fact the second smallest city in England.
  1. How can somewhere be the second smallest city in the UK and England when the smallest is in Wales?! By reading this paragraph you'd come to the possible conculsion it's the 3rd smallest.
  2. Many cities in the US are under 10k in population - it's quite normal given city status is basically just an incorporated local government. For example I drove through Calvert, Texas last week, a city with just 1,426 population - and it wasn't the smallest city I went through.
  3. References? WP:CITE?

I'm minded to remove or seriously trim this section... Thanks/wangi 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed this discussion and just posted this in reply to somebody else adding this claim:

Hi, I have reverted your edit to the Wells article because:

  • Many jurisdictions define any incorporated settlement as a city, meaning that in the United States, for example, there are thousands of cities smaller than Wells
  • Even if we're only counting cathedral cities rather than legal cities, it took me seconds to find four that are smaller than Wells: The Vatican, St Davids, Kilkenny and Cobh.

Unless you can provide a reference to the contrary, I have to conclude that it's false. Joe D (t) 00:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that referring to Wells in a world context is difficult, but search the Internet for "England's smallest city" and every result points to Wells. I think it is a justified claim to put that on the page. --Cheesy Mike 07:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wells is to the South of the Mandips - It doesnt nestle in the Mendip Hills - It is not surrounded by the hills -
Wells lies on the edge of the Mendip Hills, neither does it sit on the Mendip hills proper nor does it lie on the Somerset Levels, the nearby towns of Midsomer Norton and Radstock can be described as nestling. In Britain most cities happen to be the largest settlements in a locality, and are acknowledged by both the state and the people to have an important economic, political, or cultural significance. Wells is not the largest settlement in the area but has economic, political and cultural significance due to the presence of the cathedral. The City of London is part of the conurbation of Greater London, and is therefore widely discounted as a city in its own right, similarly to the British, Vatican City is part of Rome. Kilkenny has a population twice the size of Wells, and Cobh is no longer acknowledged by the Irish state. (Chaz smith (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Picture for infobox[edit]

I think this article deserves to have a picture put into the infobox to appear at the top of the page - but which one should it be, either from those already in the article or form the related Commons category?— Rod talk 19:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely should have a picture, though there isn't a great deal of really good, generally representative pictures to choose from. I just swapped the picture of Vicars close for a much better shot. The West Front is an obvious choice, File:Wells - Pennyless Porch.JPG is a more appealing pic from the one we currently have taken in the market place, though it doesn't show the market, but then the current one isn't exactly great. File:Vicars Close - Wells Cathedral.jpg is kind of striking because of the sky, but it leads the eye out of the page. I have a bunch of pics I took last year still to upload, but I don't think there is anything too exciting there either.--Derek Andrews (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've added the one of Pennyless Porch you suggested - we can always change it later when we get a brilliant one.— Rod talk 20:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just uploaded File:Chain gate Wells.jpg, File:Bishop's Barn, Wells.jpg, File:Brown's Gatehouse.jpg, File:Penniless Porch.jpg ‎. I have some more of Vicars Close and some of the Almshouses, but they will need to wait for another day. --Derek Andrews (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added File:Wells from cathedral tower.jpg to the article below (between Geography and Demography) for now. I thought about using it for the infobox, but at 240px the city view is just too small IMO. I also just uploaded File:Aerial view of Wells.jpg to commons, that might be a possibility, although it might be considered by some [who?] to be too cathedral-centric for this article. It would be nice to add it somewhere though, it's a rather good image; at this point I'm not sure where to put it so I'll defer to those who've been doing the bulk of the work here. Wine Guy~Talk 07:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - nice pictures. I would probably use the aerial view in the infobox. Do you have similar photos for other Somerset towns/villages? I'm currently trying to work this up to GA standard & tend to reorganise the pics (& lead) last, so I will have a shuffle around to stop "pinching" the text at some point.— Rod talk 08:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice pic, but not infobox material due to the odd angle. I have remove the pixel size while it is in the body of the article. Wikipedia's manual of style is quite prescriptive on image size. If people want more detail then they can click to get it. If it doesn't show up well at smaller sizes then it simply isn't the right image to have in the article. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I based the decision to increase the pixel size on MOS:IMAGES: Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate ... Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image. It seemed perfectly appropriate to me, but I'm not going to argue the point. Wine Guy~Talk 08:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What else for GA[edit]

I've been editing this article to try to bring it closer to the guidelines at WP:UKCITIES and would be interested in what other editors think is need to get it to meet the Wikipedia:Good article criteria? Obviously we need to expand the lead to summarise the article & reference (or remove) the uncited claims, but is there anything else which would be required?— Rod talk 22:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now changed the pictures, as discussed above, and tried to tidy up other parts. I've expanded the lead a bit, but this might still need more per WP:LEAD. Is there anything else which people think is still needed?— Rod talk 15:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Siduri Books ?[edit]

Hello. This editor says the business is based in Wells [1] (a bibliographical notice from the British Library gives "Draycott", but it is not far away) : "Siduri Books, a family-run business based in Wells in Somerset, was founded in 2008." Isn't it worth a mention ? Jacques Goliot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.9.146.199 (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. A book publisher with two books on its list is on par with dozens of other non-notable businesses in the area. Derek Andrews (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. With the exception of one oppose, which seems so be based on a misreading of WP:PLURAL, all others are in favour of removing the primary topic. Note: the disambiguation page has not been moved yet. This requires admin assistance, which I have requested. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– This place looks adorable, and I love Hot Fuzz, but it's just nowhere near WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for such a common term. It's entirely possible that Google is Americanizing my results, but I get a grand total of two hits for the English city in the first 5 pages of wells -wikipedia. Nothing in the first give pages of a Books search either, where H. G. Wells and Ida B. Wells dominate. Also, the term is sufficiently ambiguous that the corresponding category is Category:Wells, Somerset. --BDD (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support "Wells" should be a disambiguation page, and I would argue that the primary topic of "wells" is being the plural of "well", which would be about gas, oil, or water wells. -- 70.24.244.51 (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been expecting this request since the category was renamed back in 2009. Although I am more interested in the city than other uses I can't really object. If this move goes ahead would Wells (disambiguation) become the target of Wells? if so can we leave the first line as a link to the city and can we assume a bot or other mechanism would deal with the hundreds/thousands of links, and what about the category on commons which is currently titled "Wells, England"?— Rod talk 11:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wells (disambiguation) would move to Wells, yes. I should've formatted this as a multi-move. I'm not sure about the Commons category; that's really up to them. --BDD (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Primary topic arguments are usually petty, messy and based on little more than personal opinion. However, the name/word "wells" is sufficiently ambiguous and ubiquitous to cause confusion, and that should perhaps be the argument that is concentrated upon, rather than primary topic. I would support the move, with "Wells" becoming a disambiguation page.--Rushton2010 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support based solely on consistency. I don't place much weight on the argument given for the proposal. When I search for Wells, Wells Fargo is tops, but the first page of results shows three results to the UK city, though I don't think this is a good test anyway. Anyone searching Wikipedia for a surname, other than something like Obama or Churchill, deserves whatever they get if they don't use a first name or some other identifier. Likewise anyone doing a search using a plural form of a common word may not get too far either. That pretty much leaves the place names, and I would put Wells in the lead in terms of seniority and importance. I really don't see much diffrence between this and York, London etc. I agree with Rod that the city should be first line on any dab page, and the need for a bot to fix current links. --Derek Andrews (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong disagree Having read around this a little I now disagree with this move. I believe Wells meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; all types of well are discounted by WP:PLURAL, and people are discounted by WP:NCP which requires both first and last name. Unlike WP:USPLACE, WP:UKPLACE only uses county for disambiguation when necessary. I agree somewhat with User:Rushton2010's comment, but this is dealt with adequately by the hatnote. To be quite frank, I think that anyone who ends up at Wells when they meant H. G. Wells or oil wells needs to take this as a mind-widening learning opportunity. Given this and the point that Rod made about the massive disruption of links, I think this move is both unnecessary and unwise. --Derek Andrews (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no discounting of plurals by WP:PLURAL. WP:PLURAL only concerns what the title of the page is where a subject has a plural form, should use a singular form, it does not mean that the most common usage of the plural form is not being the plural of a singular formed article name. -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I ditto that; Derek Andrews, we do indeed count plural forms when determining primary topic despite WP:PLURAL (which only tells us what the final name of the article should be, not whether or not there is primary topic for the plural form). See also Bones and Talk:Bones (disambiguation), or Cats if you like pictures of kitties (and who doesn't?). Red Slash 04:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move to Wells, Somerset. For whatever reason, we don't tend to use England to naturally disambiguate if I recall. (See Bath, Somerset.) I thought well would easily be the primary topic... then I looked at that disambiguation page, and WOW, it's a doozy. And then I see that Water well isn't even the primary topic for well! Okay, I give in, no primary topic. Red Slash 04:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Most town & cities need disambiguation by region, especially so when the name is a common dictionary word. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another notable person - Alfred Perles[edit]

Alfred Perles - friend of Henry Miller and other well-known people in the Paris literary set of the 1930s. According to his Wikipedia article he changed his name to Alfred Barrett and lived in a housing estate in Wells. Henry Miller probably visited him there. 2.101.4.112 (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this correct? Second only to London?[edit]

it is second only to the City of London in area and population, though not part of a larger urban agglomeration. I don't understand what this means. London has a huge population; Wells has a tiny population. Peter K Burian (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what this should be saying is it is the second smallest city in England (there are some in Wales & Northern Ireland which are smaller).— Rod talk 08:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
City of London v. London - the latter is not a "City" (it is of course a city in ordinary, modern language). Sumorsǣte (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point about not being part of a "larger urban agglomeration" is that the City of London, though smaller than Wells, is of course part of the metropolis of London. Wells therefore is the smallest "stand alone" City in England. Sumorsǣte (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting; I still think we need to revise the lede so it makes sense to readers. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Wells, Somerset. 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) 20:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Wells, Somerset. 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) 12:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Wells, Somerset. 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) 20:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Take Over' of Old Blue School building - Date Query[edit]

Article currently reads "Wells Little Theatre is operated by a voluntary society which started in 1902. In 1989 they took over the old boy's building of Wells Blue School, where they put on a variety of operatic and other productions.[79]"

To my knowledge the 'voluntary society which started in 1902' began its occupation, use & conversion to current purposes of this building something nearer to 20 years earlier than 1989. I could believe it to be possible that the purchase of the building by the current company may have been completed in 1989 & that Wells Operatic Society may have previously been renting the building. The citation quoted for the article is a website which doesn't now appear to me to offer any clarification of this history. I don't wish to edit the article while not knowing the precise facts but I would assert that as written the article is blurring some history.31.51.220.16 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Persons - Additions To List[edit]

I was going to say something under the Alfred Perles section above but since that's now quite an old comment I thought we may as well have a section for anybody else that gets belatedly remembered

Ronald Corp - composer/conductor is notable enough to have a well established Wikipedia page. I can't provide a citation but can offer a memory that as a teenager he appeared on stage as a member of Wells Operatic Society.31.51.220.16 (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wells,_Somerset&oldid=1212339385"