Jump to content

Talk:Ramsgate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Climate tables - suggestion of improvement

[edit]

The climate is usually defined by the average temperature for each of the months. Not by max and minimum averages. This applies to most climate tables in Wikipedia - but here is an example of an otherwise very good table of figures (degrees C with one decimal for instance) The table only lacks the most important line - the line of average temperaures for each months on a 24 hour basis. The average (24 hrs) temperature for a certain month is not equal to average max + average min divided in two. This has to do with the fact that temperatures usually rises very fast after sunrise - up to the 24 hour maximum , and then remains at around the same temperature for a few hours and then temperature begins to drop much slower and at sunset temperatures does not begin to fall faster then just before. There's no equivalence to the sunrise fast temperature rising at sunset. Temperatures continue to drop after sunset but at the same "speed" as in the late afternoon. The 24 hour min temperature is usually just before sunrise. To This an explaining of how temperatures rises and falls during an average 24 hour day. At discussions of climate and climate change (or comparing different geographical areas with each other) it's mainly this temperature - the average temperature of the 12 months or the average annual temperature - which is the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.39.47 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Worst School

[edit]

In the section titled 'Modern Times' it is claimed that Ramsgate has the worst school in Britain. What school is this? Where is a citation? Infact, might I be so bold as to suggest a secion on education in the town. KevinCarmody 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that got edited out within a minute of me posting it.. KevinCarmody 18:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

[edit]

This page needs a Famous Residents Past and Present section. Nelson, Van Gough, Marx, Engles, etc etc. I don't mind starting on it later, but if anyone else wants to start in the interim, that would be cool. KevinCarmody 18:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have now done KevinCarmody 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added to the section too now adem80 15:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy Up

[edit]

Is it me or does the page seem a little disorganised?? This happens when new information is added but would it be worthwhile having a tidy up and reorganising the sections to make it cleaner?

I propose new sections of:

  • History - sections already on the page such as 'Electric tramways...' could go under this category and it would also encourage further articles on the history of ramsgate
  • Churches- this would tidy up the introduction section to make it more precise

What do you think??

adem80 15:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


That third paragraph definitely needs breaking down. Ok, I've had a bit of a play, how about a layout something like this (this is just a sketch):

  • History
    • Ramsgate's Royal Harbour
    • Ramsgate at war
  • Geography
  • Government
  • Affiliations (Twin cities/towns)
  • Economy
  • Demographics
  • Culture
    • Tourism
    • Sports
    • Media/arts - cinemas, galleries, films set there, like a Jive Bunny video was shot there, etc
    • Notable Residents
  • Architecture/Churches
  • Transportation
    • By Sea/Ramsgate maritime
    • By Road
    • By Rail/Electric Tramways & Lighting Co. Ltd.
    • By Air/Air links
  • Education
    • Infant Schools
    • Junior Schools
    • Primary Schools
    • Secondary Schools
    • Higher
    • Further
  • Further reading/See also
  • Notes - the page needs alot of source citing
  • External links

There is probably stuff that I've missed and stuff that is superfluous. Maybe some of the subsections wont be needed and can just be seperated on the page, like the education bit ^_^. The Modern Times section thats already on the page could easily be divided up. To call something Modern Times is a little subjective anyway, so it's not really a worry to lose that title. I don't think the page needs a seperate gallery as such, but rather have the photos weaved through the fabric of the page. Like a beach photo in a tourism section and photo of the marina in a section of the harbour.

Ok, there is something to think about.

KevinCarmody 02:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


That sounds really good. Giving it seperate sections will encourage further contributions. I reckon your categories will be fine and once it's been edited we can always modify some of the headers slightly if needed. adem80 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I've given the page an overhaul using your suggestions for the headers. There are some sections that are incomplete but I included them anyway and will owrk on them over the next few days.

I've also left the gallery in there for the moment as I think it'll be better to sort out all the sections then include the various photos. adem80 18:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm down with the gallery thing while we get sorted. we could do with more pictures, i'll head out with my camera sometime. it would also be nice if we could have a harbour plan and a town coat of arms, but image copyright be an issue with that sort of thing. i've moved alot of stuff about and hopefully made it easier to read and navigate. there are still some very shakey areas and others that need alot of expanding, but it's getting there. i've not really deleted anything, but this will still need alot of fact checking and referencing. KevinCarmody 03:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totally neglected to think of the wonderful combination that is flickr and creative commons licenses. still need a crest/seal/coat of arms thing though. KevinCarmody 05:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Kev. It's nice to see the page expanding. A lot of work to still be done, and once all the sections are complete it'll be worth reading it through completely and maybe refining a bit. 88.105.142.46 18:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks mr ip, but i can't take the credit, compare histories and see what Adem has done. anyway, it's a bit early for the back slapping. i agree, refining is v.important. as is whats on my mind most, referencing. KevinCarmody 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Mr IP is me!! I must've logged out by accident.adem80 09:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

[edit]

Changed intro to reflect present day Ramsgate using existing info from article body. Moved origins of the name "Ramsgate" into History section. Pgr94 05:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ramsgate: New article?

[edit]

I find the history section has plenty of interesting information but is growing too big to be part of the main Ramsgate article. I'd like to suggest we create a new article dedicated to Ramsgate's history. The main Ramsgate article could cover the salient points and link to the history article for more detail. Any opinions? Pgr94 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we expect a great deal more information to be added? If so, I don't see a problem in a split. KevinCarmody 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created History of Ramsgate and summarised History section of Ramsgate. Could use some improvement... Pgr94 12:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Shaw architects don't belong in an article on Ramsgate. If they are sufficiently notable they should have their own article. Website in memory of the Shaw architects Pgr94 08:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a paragraph about them in History of Ramsgate. Pgr94 08:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsgate and Eurotunnel?

[edit]
"Also, a new Eurotunnel route is being buit inside Ramsgate borders in the village of Ebbsfleet to replace the current depo in Ashford, although Ashford is campaigning to keep it open."

This is news to me. Can anyone provide more info? Pgr94 18:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The line is in Ebbsfleet near Gravesend not Ebbsfleet near Ramsgate. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  16:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coal Riot - unverifiable

[edit]

There are no references in the following section and I was unable to verify the claims (cf WP:V). I have removed the section from the article, but if it can be substantiated then it can of course be restored.

Ramsgate has a history of industrial militancy. In August 1920, a decision by the Ramsgate corporation to sell 1000 tons of locally produced coal to Denmark set off what became known as the Coal Riot. It was unfortunate perhaps that these shipments were to be transported by two German ships, the first world war still fresh in local minds. Massive police protection of the harbour was required, but this did not prevent local people from venting their displeasure upon the local authorities.

Pgr94 (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Varification

[edit]

This article needs more citations to back up the probably correct first half of the article. --Lord Matt (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


verify: ref bygone kent, meresboro press, check... faedra! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.174.43 (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  16:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in Townley House

[edit]

Even now I've cleaned it up a bit, it feels like the Townley House article should be a paragraph in this one rather than a free-standing article. 82.20.52.30 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but it doesn't really follow the general flow of a place article, to have a paragraph on each of its significant features, so i'd say that the article should stay, but maybe try and improve it. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 05:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


For the time being i've inserted a couple of references (just in the refs section at the moment, i'll go back later and in-line cite it) but those give a bit more information, and certainly enough to expand the article out. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 05:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no merge. I don't think Townley house needs a paragraph in this article (Ramsgate). It is also mentioned in Historic buildings in Ramsgate. If the notability of Townley house is in question then expand the section in Historic buildings instead. If Townley house is notable enough, then the article just needs expanding and needn't be deleted. pgr94 (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about the Historic Buildings article, but that would seem to be the ideal place for it. The criteria for notability are the same whether it's an article in its own right or part of another article, the rule is more about whether a subject takes up a disproportionate amount of a more general article. In this case I don't think that's a problem, so it should go in HB. Although I was originally thinking of it more for the historical significance of having Victoria's mum owning a place in Ramsgate (contributing to its fashionability etc) more than the particular architectural merit of the building itself. 82.20.52.30 (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone still support the merge with Ramsgate? If not, the merge tag can be dropped. Personally, I have no strong opinion either way on whether Townley House should be merged with Historic buildings in Ramsgate. pgr94 (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving contents of Port of Ramsgate into this article

[edit]

User Trackorack recently moved the entire contents of Port of Ramsgate into this article, leaving next to nothing in Port of Ramsgate. I think that some information about the port in this article is useful, adding all the information is excessive. It clutters the article and doesn't leave much room for growth on either subject. I wonder if any others would care to comment. pgr94 (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree - the structure for WP is to have main articles such as Ramsgate, with daughter articles such as Port of Ramsgate. This is definitely the right structure to keep. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 10:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I cannot agree because there are two similar but not coherent articles on Ramsgate in Wiki. The Port of Ramsgate article is less than 300 words (2.6kB)which is only just above the size for an article to be considered a stub. The Port of Ramsgate article duplicates much that was already contained in the larger and more comprehensive Ramsgate article; probably less than 100 words were additional information. Currently the Ramsgate article is 26kb which is significantly below the wiki advised limit of 40kB; and that limit is only a recommendation to consider splitting the article. The proposed move is in line with Wikipedia guidance on avoiding duplication and the proliferation of small articles. Since your comment I have been looking at the 'Kent' stream of work - and particularly the Thanet elements. I would propose that the entries for Ramsgate, Margate and Broadstairs should be roughly similar, but neither of the latter two articles seem to need 'auxiliary' articles to describe core elements of their towns. I would to like to thank Pgr94 for pointing out the Wikipedia:Merge article, which I have reacquainted myself with. I now believe that Wikipedia:Redirect on Port of Ramsgate is probably the correct way forward. Your advice on maintaining the history and discussion of Port of Ramsgate would be appreciated. Trackorack (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the same logic, we can compact Ramsgate, Margate and Broadstairs down into Thanet. That's just too much detail, so let's just join that with Canterbury, Maidstone, Dover and few villages down into Kent. Then while we're at it let's compact all the counties into England. Pretty soon we'll just have one article called Universe. Won't that save some space! I jest of course. But why not use your energy to expand Port of Ramsgate rather than claim it is too short - there are a number of identified topics that need coverage that are still absent. It's easy to delete, it's harder to write. pgr94 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that your suggestions are extreme considering the limited merger that I was suggesting. 'But' I have done some more research and updated the Ramsgate (disambiguation) page. I was interested to see 4 articles on Ramsgates' railways and an element on History of Ramsgate#Ramsgate's Royal Harbour (Is it a Royal Harbour?) that is bigger than the whole article on the Port of Ramsgate. I will bow out nowTrackorack (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the port section of Ramsgate is expanded to a size that would justify its own article it can always be split off again.--Charles (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your considered and rational comment.Trackorack (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Ramsgate category

[edit]

The new "See also" section has 17 Ramsgate links, so I decided it was time for a Ramsgate category. After a first pass, there are now 19 entries in the category. Hopefully this will help make the articles more coherent and avoid overlap (as helpfully pointed out by TrackORack). pgr94 (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Local clubs and societies

[edit]

There was a list of clubs and societies in the external links that was removed. The new link (DMOZ) is pretty poor in comparison. I don't understand why the wiki should be deleted; having a poor quality list doesn't improve the article. Perhaps DMOZ should be updated if it is to be used as a replacement. Anyone have an opinion on this? pgr94 (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some answers to this can be found on Pgr94's own talkpage at section External links. Maybe he forgot to look back through it. Dmoz is accepted by Wikipedia as a link.--Charles (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't really understand your point. I'm not suggesting removing DMOZ. I'm suggesting the article would benefit from a good list of local activities regardless of the source. DMOZ can be updated to include that useful local information, but at present it's pretty poor. pgr94 (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory and there is no reason for clubs and societies to be linked.--Charles (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, with all due respect I think you are misinterpreting the guideline. Wikipedia is not a directory means the article cannot contain a directory, such as list of specific clubs. It does not say there cannot be links to external directories. Besides, WP:EL is the guideline relating to external links. pgr94 (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

[edit]

The page has a "culture" section, but it is empty. Was it intentionally left blank? Maybe the section should be removed completely if there is no notable culture in Ramsgate? VisitMargate (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ramsgate. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ramsgate. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ramsgate&oldid=1212215908"