Talk:Ingleby Barwick

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Ingleby Barwick is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A Link Request

First things first, I'm wanting to add a link to a new Ingleby Barwick community forum. I’m in no way affiliated with any other Ingleby Barwick website.

I'm aware that if i posted a link, you would most likely remove is straight away. So, please hear me out! I recently moved in to Ingleby Barwick, and would like to contribute to the community. Being in IT, my initial thoughts were "I'll start a forum". I have ran many successful and active forum communities in the past, and know how much hard work is needed to get things of the ground. I feel that existing websites (no names) have lost their focus, and are now centred more on making profit from advertisers than actually benefiting anyone!

I have just completed the design of the site, and am now in the process of getting flyers and posters printed for distribution around the estate (note my carefull choice of word, its still an estate isn't it!). Just one of the many methods that i will be using to help make the site in to a valuable community resource. It will be a hard slog, but I’m hoping with the right moves, it will be successful.

To check out the site design you can visit it here.

Andrew, "forums should generally not be linked to" - I think the key work here is generally. There is no rule that states you can't link to forum communities. To shoot down something that could be beneficial for all isn't helpful, and to me defeats the point of a site such as wikipedia!

The first hurdle in getting things off the ground is getting targeted traffic. A link from this site would do such a thing.

You can get in touch with me at "mailme(at)matthewpark.co.uk"

--Mattpark 22:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No comments as yet. I'll wait a bit longer before i go putting up the link as im no no rush at the moment.

--Mattpark 11:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your link will be reverted. See WP:EL Andrew Duffell 12:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, Please elaborate on that a little. For what reason would the link be "reverted"? I see a one or two reasons from those guidelines which state that my particluar link wouldn't be adivsed, but i see more that would see me link as a valuable one. To hinder such a site is rather pointless. People who visit this wiki page can in turn visit the forum... and hopefully valuable information can be gathered there off visitors who don't understand wiki. I see no major reason why this wouldn't benefit all involved. --Mattpark 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says not to make links to your own site, or to forums (unless they meet critera that you don't meet). Andrew Duffell 23:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

I really think linking to these "community forums" is completly unnecessary as we are already linking to their parent site "InglebyBarwick.com" which has explicit links to the forums. The only reason they "claim" the forums are seperate is because they got in to trouble over some of the things that were posted on the forum when it was hosted with the site. Also they are not very active forums at that, so I see no need for a direct link from this article.-Andrewduffell 07:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this I reference the wikipedia guidelines on external links. Quote: "10. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to." -Andrewduffell 19:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew is completely correct in his assertion here, please refrain from continuously adding the link to the forum. I don't know if it is the owner of the site is adding it or not, but if so this is spam/self publicity and also not permitted on wikipedia.Super Ted 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation needed?

I've already reverted the addition of a pronunciation description once and its been readded. I noticed Andrewduffell also reverted the change at the Thornaby on Tees article. I've not seen this type of pronunciation description in any other articles. I feel this change should be reverted. Any objections please discuss, I don't want to get into a revert/edit war over this. Super Ted 15:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Providing pronunciation for geographical locations? It's very common: see Berwick-upon-Tweed. Holgate 15:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to have pronunciation guides where there is a need. There's clearly a need in places like Berwick-on-Tweed and Keswick, and so too is there a need when describing Ingleby Barwick. I vote it stays. Arcturus 16:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the method to describe the pronunciation was incorrect. The standard as far as I can see is as in this article. --Andrewduffell 18:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way Andrew suggests looks more in fitting with an encyclopaedic entry as far as I'm concerned. If someone understands the terminology it may be useful to update the entry. Super Ted 00:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Pronunciation?

I have never heard Ingleby Barwick pronounced as it says in this article. I have only ever heard people say it as in "bar-wick" and not "barrick". Although I do not live in the estate myself, I live elsewhere in Teesside, so maybe someone who lives there knows better. --Screeming Monkey 19:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Barrick is the correct one, and if you speak to people who have lived in the estate for 20+ years they are more likly to use it. More recently I think the estate has been promoted as Bar-wick, and it has caught on with new people coming to the estate from outside the area.

Personally I call it Bar-wick, even though I know it is not correct, because it is what most people call it, and we have to wonder whether it really matters. Andrew Duffell 19:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciation is Barrick as correctly pointed out above. It is centuries old and matters as it it's name.

Is IB a town or estate?

Part 1

A search on http://www.multimap.com states that Ingleby Barwick is in Stockton-On-Tees. This is what I have always believed to be the case, for postal and other uses. Any objections to me removing the reference to Thornaby? Super Ted 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I object. Ingleby Barwick is a housing estate, albeit a large one. Housing estates are in towns. In IBs case Thornaby. Thornaby is the area south of the Tees. Stockton is the area north of the Tees.

Stockton on Tees is the borough, so Ingleby Barwick (estate) is in Thornaby (town), which is in the local government district and borough of Stockton on Tees.

This can be compared to Levendale (estate), is in Yarm (town), which is in the the local government district and borough of Stockton on Tees.

I hope this clears this up. :) - Andrewduffell 23:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from there Andrew, but still feel placing it in Thornaby may be a mistake. Unless I'm mistaken, Levendale has a school, a pub and possibly some form of playing fields. IB on the other hand has multiple schools, a supermarket, multiple shops, 3 Doctor's surgeries, 2 vet's etc etc. I feel this makes IB an entity in its own right. Looking at Town I can see evidence both for and against describing IB as a town, and am unsure of its current status. I'm pretty sure the parish council don't describe themselves as a town council though which is likely the deciding factor here. However, I know of very few IB residents who feel they live in Thornaby, and as I say, postally Thornaby is not referenced in the address (Unlike Levendale which precedes Yarm I believe). In summary, I feel that unless there is evidence to the contrary (I'm happy to admit it if I'm wrong, I'm very new here!), the reference to Thornaby should be removed and IB described as being withing the borough of Stockton-On-Tees. Thanks for your prompt reply :) Super Ted 12:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Levendale may have less local ammenities, but purely because it is smaller. If Levendale expanded into the fields around it to be the same size as Ingleby Barwick, that would not make it a town in its own right, it would still be a part of Yarm. Yes, IB is a very large estate with many of the features of a small town, but it has never been re-designated as a town.

I know people in IB would not say they live in Thornaby, but that doesn't actually mean anything, but the fact that IB is so big it is well known in its own right. If I said to people I lived in Levendale, they wouldn't have a clue where I lived, because Levendale is so small ;)

I got to go now, so can't type any more now, but may continue this reply later :) -Andrewduffell 19:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers again for the prompt reply. Glad this isn't descending into an irrational arguement, as I mentioned previously I'm more than happy to be wrong, just want the article to be accurate :) In terms of the Levendale comparison, I don't think it has its own Parish Council so I wouldn't expect that to have town/independant entity status. As well as this, Levendale is surrounded by other areas of Yarm unless I'm mistaken. Whereas IB has the River/Yarm on one side and Thornaby on the other. This lack of containment so to speak would lead me to the conclusion that IB is not 'within' Thornaby. Have you got any links to references to confirm IB is within Thornaby? Thanks for your input so far, very useful! Super Ted 23:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Civil/Ecclesiastical Parishes have nothing to do with whether it is a town. I'm no expert on them, but as far as I know they are just a means of splitting up a large area into a small one, e.g Middlesbrough won't all be one parish as far as I know because it is too big.

Levendale has the rest of Yarm to the west of it, and Ingleby Barwick to the east of it (bordered by Leven) Eaglescliffe is to the north (bordered by Tees). Levendale is on the edge of Yarm, just as Ingleby Barwick is on the edge of Thornaby.

With regards to references, there is this map -->[2] -Andrewduffell 10:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're going to agree on this Andrew lol. Still, the world would be a boring place if we were all of the same opinion! Looking at the evidence presented, and the current state of affairs to me it seems it is definately a very grey area as to the exact status of IB. I still feel that IB is an entity in its own right due to its size and independant nature compared to Thornaby. However in the interests of fairness and that your views are entirely valid I'd like to propose a compromise. Would it be acceptable to you if I edit the first line to read: "Ingleby Barwick is a large housing estate on the outskirts of a town called Thornaby-on-Tees, within the borough of Stockton-on-Tees and ceremonial county of North Yorkshire, England." That to me represents the state of affairs at the moment, if you disagree feel free to respond appropriately. Thanks again. Super Ted 10:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ingleby Barwick has never been declared by any act of government as an independent entity from Thornaby. Many people would like to disaccociate Ingleby Barwick from Thornaby due to the fact that they don't want to be accociated with some of the poorer parts of the town. Whilst I understand this, I do not think we should be diverging from the facts in an encyclopaedic article. The current wording reflects the current legal status of Ingleby Barwick as a housing estate in Thornaby, and editing it to say "on the outskirts" makes it unclear as to whether it is encapsulated by the the town of Thornaby, or whether it is a sepreate entity such as the village of Maltby.

I will look into writing a paragraph about the limbo that a lot of people see the estate as being in with regards to its relationship with Thornaby. - Andrewduffell 10:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Andrew, have to disagree with you there. My motives for correcting this article are nothing to do with not wishing IB to be linked with the "poorer parts", far from it. I, like you, also wish the article to be accurate. Stating that it is in Thornaby so to speak also makes the situation unclear as to the reality of IB's status. As I'm sure you are aware, there is a green belt of land (ever decreasing sadly due to development works) between what I consider to be the town of Thornaby and IB. Looking at a precise definition of outskirts http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=outskirts, "The part or region remote from a central district, as of a city or town. Often used in the plural: on the outskirts of Paris." As far as I'm concerned the central district of Thornaby is the areas in and around Mitchell Avenue, Lanehouse Road etc. IB is independant and remote from those areas. Therefore I fail to see how you do not consider it to be on the outskirts of Thornaby? According to the definition of outskirts, this still indicates that IB is in Thornaby but also is more descriptive as to IB's exact status. It is not up to the article to allow for a percieved ambiguity based on a misunderstanding of the word outskirts. Super Ted 11:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2

Any further objections before I make the change to outskirts? Andrew, if you still have a problem with this following my explanation above, let me know. Super Ted 16:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[3] The site now lists classes Ingleby Barwick as a town in its own right. As this is the council's official website I see no reason to doubt the veracity of this claim. Any objctions please discuss. Super Ted 11:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The council has passed no motions to change the status of IB. Please do not change this without referencing official council minutes. This is clearly an error on the website which I will be contacting them about. User:Andrewduffell

Please see WP:Verifiability, in particular:

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Under these guidelines I am afraid you were incorrect to revert my edit and I have re-reverted it accordingly. If it turns out that the council have made an error I have no objections to you altering the main page. However, I do not believe they have and as it stands IB is currently classed as a town in its own right according to the council. Also, The Borough of Stockton-on-Tees (Electoral Changes) Order 2003 [4] clearly categorises IB as a seperate parish to Thornaby. Hope this clears things up. Super Ted 16:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this article on the coucil website. http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:i6UPt9b5YhQJ:www.stockton.gov.uk/resources/environment/planning/openspace/thorningarea.pdf+"ingleby+barwick+estate"+site:stockton.gov.uk&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1 (Google cache with highlighting). IB is quoted as an estate. This is more reliable as a source because it is an offical document, not just a general promotional page which I doubt can be classed as a reliable source.The fact that IB is a seperate parish is irrelevent. Most large towns have multiple parishes (e.g Stockton and Middlesbrough.). Thornaby is no different.I have not reverted your edit, but unless you come up with something more firm than an error on the council website I will be reverting your edit.As I have said previously. There is an offical legal process that has to take place to change it from an estate to a town in its own right. This has not taken place. Unless you can reference this non-existant documentation of the legal process (which would be available if it has taken place) there is no way that IB is a town because issues discussed previously that show it is an estate in Thornaby still stands. Andrew Duffell 22:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Ingleby Barwick (correct pronunciation Barrick) and whatever those idiots at Stockton Borough Council say about it, it is definitely a large housing estate. There is no way this place is a town. Towns have character and uniqueness, maybe a town hall, and many other features that identify them as a town. IB has none of these. To suggest this overgrown estate is a town almost beggars belief. Arcturus 09:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got an email from the council:

Subject: RE: Error on stockton.gov.uk
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:18:58 +0100
From: "Asquith, Judi" <Judi.Asquith@...>
To: "Andrew Duffell" <andrew@...>

Thanks for that, I'll change the wording

It hasn't changed yet, but I expect it will. Andrew Duffell 15:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Andrew, looks like I was a tad over zealous in following Wikipedia's 'Be Bold' philosophy! I do however feel that the accusation of vandalism by an anonymous user was entirely unjustified. I assure you that the edit was done with the best of intentions, having seen the data on the council's own website. Perhaps my faith in local government is somewhat misplaced! I am interested as to what effect this article has on IB's status though. [5] Does the fact that IB is a parish independant of Thornaby mean that it is not part of Thornaby as the article currently suggests? Having made one fairly horrendous error this week, figure I had check with someone more knowledgeable than myself on these matters before potentially making another one! Super Ted 16:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. As far as I know, being a parish seperate from Thornaby isn't really affecting the status of IB. Many large towns are split into seperate civil and church parishes because the size of them makes it unmanagable for them to be in the same parish. In the case of IB, it is the largest privately owned housing estate in Europe, and is very different from the rest of Thornaby, so has many different concerns. This is why they have created it a sepreate civil parish (albeit including Hilton). The seperate church parish was created with the forming of the church in Ingleby Barwick.

Looked at a few websites and it looks like a lot of boundaries across the country were redrawn in 2003. [6] Is a map of the Stockton area and the new boundaries. As far as I can see IB is now seperate from Thornaby. I think this establishes IB's nature as an independent entity or am I mistaken? Super Ted 22:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is only ward and civil parish boundaries that have been changed as far as I can see. I note that Egglescliffe isn't showen as seperate from Eaglescliffe on this map, but they are seperate town/village. Parishes and Wards are not directly related to Towns/Villages, although in many cases they are loosely based.

Good point. However, I do feel that the map indicates IB's independence from Thornaby. If it were to be considered part of Thornaby, I would imagine that IB would be in the Thornaby South parish or some other such name. I'm trying not to get confused with IB's status as a town, village, estate etc and its status as an independent entity. To summarise what I mean, I think the first line of this article should read:

Ingleby Barwick (pronounced Barrick as in Berwick) is a large housing estate within the borough of Stockton-on-Tees and ceremonial county of North Yorkshire, England.

As far as I can tell, a housing estate is usually part of a town. However its important to remember IB is fairly unique (i.e. size, population, amenities - compared to say Levendale). The map above indicates that there is a distinct boundary between Thornaby and IB, and I can find no modern reference linking the two any longer. Royal mail certainly doesn't see it that way, and neither do numerous online mapping services who all see IB as a seperate entity. I couldn't find one referencing thornaby. I hope this is acceptable to you. Super Ted 19:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, you are correct, this has dragged on for far too long now. However, the evidence that IB is now an independent housing estate is overwhelming to say the least. Your only evidence thus far that this is not the case is an old map [7] that was produced before IB came into existance. You will note that this is described as a "Boundary Map" on the site concerned.

You will note that these boundaries were changed pursuant to "The Borough of Stockton-on-Tees (Electoral Changes) Order 2003". [8] I suggest you pay particular arrention to section 3.1 - 3. - (1) The existing wards of the borough[7] shall be abolished.

If IB were part of Thornaby as you continue to assert then IB would fall under Wards of the parish of Thornaby, however it does not, it in fact falls under Wards of the parish of Ingleby Barwick.

I note from your replies above that you are under the incorrect impression that a housing state must be within a town. This is not the case. This is shown in the Leigh Park article. I am sure you will appreciate that IB is fairly unique in terms of its size and also in that it is not in direct contact with any town in the vicinity.

You are incorrect, Leigh Park is within Havant, a town district. All Leigh Park addresses have Havant in them.--88.105.96.197 21:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, in case you need to re-refer to it, there is a graphical representation of IB and Thornaby here: [9]

There is also anecdotal evidence indicating that IB is not part of Thornaby. The new sign at the entrance to the estate (coming from Leven Bank) says "Welcome to Ingleby Barwick - Stockton". It makes no reference to Thornaby. You will also note that the study that you quoted previously [10] clearly refers to Thornaby and Ingleby Barwick - (my emphasis) i.e. 2 seperate entities.

I appreciate that IB is not a town, and am grateful to you for clarifying that for me. However, I hope you now realise this does not mean that IB can not be an independant housing estate.

For further clarification see Town, you will note that Any parish council can decide to describe itself as a Town Council. Not all settlements which are commonly described as towns have a 'Town Council' however. I am not saying IB is a town, however having its own Parish Council as described above does mean it is an independent entity. The status of this entity is a housing estate, not a town, as the parish council have passed no such motion as you correctly described above. I am being careful not to confuse IB's independence (i.e. not part of Thornaby) and the description of it (i.e. estate, town etc.) I hope I have achieved this.

I hope you now see why IB is independent. I am grateful to you for the work you do on a large number of articles concerning areas in the north. By and large you do a fine job of ensuring inaccurate information does not get into the articles. However, in this case you are incorrect in your assertions. If, despite my explanation, you still wish to refute that IB is no longer part of Thornaby, please feel free to do so. We will then have to see where we go from here. I will revert the article to my edit in the near future if I don't hear anything to the contrary. Thanks for all your help. Super Ted 12:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, up til this point I have assumed good faith on your part. However, your accusations of vandalism are both unfounded and hurtful. On 2 occasions I have given you ample opportunity to make your views known before I edit the article, and on 2 occasions you have reverted without further discussion. Wikipedia relies on consensus, and without discussion this can not be achieved. I said at the end of my last comment above that if you still disagreed with the changes I was going to make, to say so and we would work out a course of action. I have quoted a number of sources, including an act which did reassign the boundaries. That is along with all the other evidence I mentioned. I am sure you know everything on wikipedia must be verifiable, verification which I have provided, and as far as I can tell, you haven't. As I was hopefully going to suggest to you before you started an edit war, as opposed to after, I recommend we take this to request for comment. I have now done this, and will await a response from an independent user. I am happy to leave the article in its current state until the situation is resolved. Super Ted 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have left the article for a long while now Andrew and unfortunately we appear to have recieved no further comment. I used the Leigh Park article as a reference as it stood at the time, if the article was incorrect that is fair enough. However, there is no reason a housing estate must be within a town, just as there is no reason a village must be within a town.

This is all by the by however. The discussion here is not whether I can prove IB is not in Thornaby or not (which I feel I have above with the evidence I have quoted.) Rather, if the reference to Thornaby is to remain, it is your responsibilty to cite appropriate sources to support your claim, and not simply call my removal of your unsourced claim vandalism. At present your only evidence is a map that was made before IB even existed. This is not catagorical proof that IB is within Thornaby. Especially considering I have already drawn your attention to a revised version of the map which clearly shows a boundary between IB & Thornaby. I am more than happy to allow the reference to remain if you can find a source to categorically support your claim that IB is within Thornaby. After all, I believe we both have the common aim of keeping this article accurate. Without a reference however, it is entirely correct to remove the claim, as unsourced statements are not permitted on wikipedia. Otherwise, disagreements like this would never be settled if both parties claimed that their version was the truth without appropriate citations. I would really appreciate a reply this time Andrew, as without discussion it is going to be impossible to resolve this in a constructive manner. Super Ted 20:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before. I consider all edits to say IB is not within a town to be vandalism from now onwards, and I expect that they will be reverted by myself, or fellow editors of this article. The hiarachy is: Estates > Towns/Villages/Hamlets/Cities/etc > Boroughs/Counties > Countries > Continents. As I haver pointed out numerous times. A parish is in no way directly linked to a town status. Towns can have seperate parishes for their different estates/areas, and this is quite common.

I will not be commenting again in response to your repeated rambling about parishes changing so IB must be an entity of its own. Good night Andrew Duffell 23:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you in a number of respects their Andrew. Housing estates are a modern phenomenon, but it is flawed logic to suggest that a hamlet (collection of a few houses) can be an independant entity whereas an estate (1000's of houses) cannot. Most estates are joined to the towns they are part of. IB is not in any way connected to Thornaby. As I have already stated, if you can show me a council/official document of any kind that says IB is part of Thornaby I am willing to reconsider my position on this matter. However, I doubt such a document exists as I have hunted high and low for it. Everything on Wikipedia MUST be verifiable, and as such evidence is required for any claims made in articles by editors. If something is unsourced it is our responsibility to find a source, or remove the offending piece of information. At present this Wikipedia article is the only piece of information I can find that states IB is within Thornaby. That is in direct contravention of Wikipedia's principles of verifiability. Whatever you believe to be true is irrelevant, if you can't source it, you can't put it in the article.

For evidence of this policy, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. In particular, this quote from Jimmy Wales,

Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting other editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

I also draw your attention to another part of the article which I have already quoted to you on a previous occasion.

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

I have removed the reference to Thornaby, but please feel free to reinstate it with appropriate sources that clearly show IB is within Thornaby. Preferably council minutes or another official document, I feel that if you expect such a source of me, it is entirely appropriate for me to expect the same of you. I do not appreciate, and will not be deterred by your threats of referring to my edits as vandalism. I suggest you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I will not report you this time as this debate has obviously angered you somewhat and we all make mistakes, however, I ask that you do not do this again. Super Ted 11:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part 3

There has been a reopening of the long debate on Town or Housing estate! And an edit, I am not sure this will go down well! Looking on wikipedia I found this articleList of towns in England. Does everyone agree we can now call IB a town with a wiki link to this page? James (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2011

No, Ingleby Barwick is not a town:

There is no 'Town Charter'
There has never been a market
It is not an economic or business hub for the area.

It is no different to any other community such as Ragworth or Fairfield.

It can be described as a civil parish, community, housing estate. That is what it is.

I suspect that someone will draw attention to the fact it has a town council. This means nothing, and is purely in name. Any parish council can pass a motion to rename itself a town council, but this is only in name. Would we really start calling Hilton and Hartburn towns if their parish councils passed such a motion. I suggest that anyone wishing it change the status of Ingleby Barwick to a town reads all of the above before doing so.

Andrew (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thought you could read this quote "In England and Wales, a town traditionally was a settlement which had a charter to hold a market or fair and therefore became a "market town". Market towns were distinguished from villages in that they were the economic hub of a surrounding area, and were usually larger and had more facilities.

In modern usage the term town is used either for old market towns, or for settlements which have a town council, or for settlements which elsewhere would be classed a city, but which do not have the legal right to call themselves such. Any parish council can decide to describe itself as a town council, but this will usually only apply to the smallest "towns" (because larger towns will be larger than a single civil parish).

Not all settlements which are commonly described as towns have a "Town Council" or "Borough Council". In fact, because of many successive changes to the structure of local government, there are now few large towns which are represented by a body closely related to their historic borough council. These days, a smaller town will usually be part of a local authority which covers several towns. And where a larger town is the seat of a local authority, the authority will usually cover a much wider area than the town itself (either a large rural hinterland, or several other, smaller towns).

Additionally, there are "new towns" which were created during the 20th century, such as Basildon, Redditch and Telford. Milton Keynes was designed to be a "new city" but legally it is still a town despite its size.

Some settlements which describe themselves as towns (e.g. Shipston-on-Stour, Warwickshire) are smaller than some large villages (e.g. Kidlington, Oxfordshire).

The status of a city is reserved for places that have Letters Patent entitling them to the name, historically associated with the possession of a cathedral. Some large municipalities (such as Northampton and Bournemouth) are legally boroughs but not cities, whereas some cities are quite small — such as Ely or St David's for instance."

Perhaps you are being too strict on the modern concept of a town. JNevison (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2011

Sounds like you are trying to reference wikipedia with wikipedia here. There are no reliable sources to say that Ingleby Barwick is a town. There are sources to say that Ingleby Barwick is a civil parish and estate. As I said before, a defined 'town council' means nothing. Ingleby Barwick was never defined as a new town by government unlike Basildon, Redditch and Telford. Milton Keynes. Andrew (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for trying to find eveidence that Ingleby Barwick is purely a large estate. The mouseprice reference, number 3, refers to the Postcode area TS17 which is Thornaby and Barwick. This is different from the Geographical area of Ingleby Barwick although there is talk of giving Ingleby Barwick it's own Postcode in the next year or so. It is well recognised that Postal areas do not always reflect geographical areas in the sense of local settlements. I think this reference should be removed. I also think that a local estate agent is not necessarily a good reference as evidence of IB's status. I think the 1986 Doomsday project is quite good evidence but alas is now 24 years old and may well be out of date. I have found numerous sites where IB is referred to as a Town including articles in local and national papers and also the website of our local member of parliament. Also there are references to IB as a large residential estate likewise they appear in local or national media in the main. The last officially recorded document I can find for Ingleby Barwick is as a Township in the Parish of Stainton. Granted this was in the 1800's. Perhaps then Ingleby Barwick could be a hamlet, a village, town (although not a city). I can not find any current legal definition of a town only the older, no longer used, definitions you have mentioned previously. Unfortunately these cannot be applied to new settlements as they no longer have any legal status. Modern geographical definitions of settlements merely refer to a town as a settlement larger than a village and smaller than a city. Social geographers have coined the term dormitory town a place from which many people travel in order to work in a bigger town or city. This could also easily be applied to IB. JNevison (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2011

If you decide that IB is a town, the surely Acklam and Fairfield are towns? I think the definition of IB is quite clear as a civil parish, and estate. It is quite often referred to as "Europe's Largest Private Housing Estate". If anything it could be referred to as a suburb of Stockton on Tees borough.

The centre of IB is never referred to as "Ingleby Barwick Town Centre" - Just "Ingleby Barwick Centre". No where do the borough council refer to it as a Town, yet they refer to Billingham, Yarm, Eaglescliffe and Thornaby as towns.

A large estate does not automatically become a town.

Andrew (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Borough Council... town...Eaglescliffe ....as towns " Eaglesciffe chapter & verse please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckstones (talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up

The article needs splitting into sections under seperate subtitles. Andrewduffell 11:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

I've just deleted a large amount of the problems section so to improve compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. I would appreciate it if someone could readd the information in a more verifiable manner. I spend a long while thinking before removing the information, and felt it best not to leave it in place for the time being as it was damaging to the overall reliability of the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Super Ted (talk • contribs) .

For reference, here is the removed text "Ingleby Barwick faces a number of problems, including traffic congestion at peak times. This traffic may get worse in the next two years, as the extensive housing development approaches completion. + Ingleby Barwick suffers from traffic congestion at peak times. - Many residents complain about the lack of activities available in the area for teenagers and children. This has resulted in gang fights taking place around Tesco in Ingleby Barwick centre on some evenings."-Andrewduffell 16:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all true, so why not put it back with suitable references, such as links to relevant articles in the Evening Gazette (I think Super Ted just forgot about the four tildes. I sometimes do the same - but not here) Arcturus 17:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Yeh, I've missed the tildes too sometimes, but it's easiest just to put the standard template on to make it clear). I agree that it is all true, but was badly worded so to insinuate opinion even though it is fact. If you can find appropriate references then please do put it back in, slightly reworded. I don't think it should just have been removed as it was without discussion first, but now it has been done, we might aswell fix/improve it before we put it back.-Andrewduffell 18:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the signature, must admit I did completely forget to sign that time! Whilst I understand objections to the removal of the text, I feel it is important to pay close attention to the guidance we as editors should follow as reached by prior consensus. I will now detail why I removed each piece of information, and suggest a course of action to remedy the flaws if possible.

On the traffic issue, WP:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball clearly states that:

Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions.

It seemed clear to me that the article presented the information in such a way that it was in clear violation of this guidance. To remedy this I did attempt to seek out any official/acknowledged research into this area, but I was unable to find any. I must admit I am not very experienced in this field, so it is possible that such publications do exist and that I overlooked them. If this is the case, I would appreciate it if the information could be readded with appropriate wording and citations.

On the issue of gang wars in Ingleby Barwick Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words states that:

Weasel words are words or phrases that smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements by attributing opinions to anonymous sources. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed.

Again, I looked for a source for such information which concerned this subject, and again found my search fruitless. I must admit I was unsure of where to start with such a search, as finding a verifiable source for such information is difficult. Again, if someone could remedy this situation I would be most greatful.

Apologies for removing this information without discussion. However, I felt that the article presented almost textbook definitions of how the guidance above could be violated, and as such didn't forsee any objections to its removal. Super Ted 21:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been having another look at the article and I feel the final section on problems should be removed. I feel this for a number of reasons. The first is that the problems identified are not unique to Ingleby Barwick and also are no more serious in Ingleby Barwick than the UK as a whole as a result a brief mention perhaps to a Wiki page on modern youth problems would be more more appropriate. The second reason is that it means there is repetition within the article, youth problems around Romano park are listed both in the problems section and in the section around local amenities. The third reason is that it does not confirm to the recommended layout of a article on settlements promoted by the wikiYorkshire project. I would appreciate your thoughts on this. If there are no objections I will try and add the information to the pertinent sections higher in the article with appropriate links. J Nevison 12:12, 23 Oct 2011

I must say that this is the best referenced section in the whole article and that referencing and layout in the rest of the article are far more important areas to tackle. It would be OK to distribute the text elsewhere in the article though WP:UKCITIES does not preclude the inclusion of extra sections to cover specific topics. Keith D (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the final section is well referenced it is just the problems are no more severe, perhaps less severe if the police crimes map is to be believed, compared to other areas local or national. I am looking to improve the status of the article as a whole, I thought the layout was quite good and similar to other articles about towns. Which areas did you feel needed rehashing or referencing? J Nevison 14:28, 26 October 2011

The section that is in need of the most attention is the Amenities section which needs all of the bulleted lists switching to prose and is poorly referenced at the moment. Keith D (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly against the removal of this information. It is well referenced, and highlights the problems IB has faced and faces well. The problems are very unique to an area like Ingleby Barwick, considering it's relative wealth. Yes, Thornaby has worse social problems, but it is a much poorer area, so it is unfair to compare to IB. You will find that the social and traffic problems in a IB are far worse than comparable areas such as Yarm and Eaglescliffe.

The structure on the wiki project is suggested, but is not a one size fits all.

Andrew (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew. I think you misunderstand. My idea was not to remove the information merely organise this differently to avoid duplication. While we can all have an opinion about something such as traffic and ASB in the local area I feel these issues are present everywhere including Yarm and Eaglescliffe. Not only that they are reported elsewhere too. The last Gossip magazine for instance, which came through my door recently, featured articles from local councillors. IB councillors were mentioning a new school, there was a not about how to report ASB. Yarm councillors were mentioning traffic problems through the high street, lorries coming through the high street and ASB at Willey Flats, Eaglescliffe councillors mentioned traffic problems near Allens West especially if new housing is put up and ASB near the shops at Durham Road. I don't feel the issues faced in IB are unique after all. If there was a well recognised IB gang based and working out of IB then I feel this would be unique and worth a section of it's own. As it is IB just reflects society as a whole. J Nevison 09:26, 30 October 2011

BBC Domesday Project 1986

This is the text taken from the BBC Domesday Project:

   Ingleby Barwick is a new private      
   residential estate built on the       
   southern perimeter of the old Thornaby
   airfield.It was officially opened in  
   1981 by the mayor of Langbaurgh,a     
   borough of Cleveland County.The estate
   caters for the demand in the home     
   market from the small terrace to the  
   large detatched.Three main contractors
   are involved,each offering their own  
   individuality.The main criticisms from
   the new residents concern amenities,  
   access and communications.There are no
   shops,pubs,school or leisure centre   
   although the estate is now 5 years old
   and reasonably established.Poor bus   
   service,inadeqate[sic] road surfaces and a 
   feeling of isolation all combine to   
   give the majority of residents a sense
   of neglect.This would appear to be a  
   common problem_the failure to supply  
   the basic requirements of a community.

-Andrew Duffell 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the problems section should be in as they arew no more or less problems in IB than any other avarage place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.6.47 (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links

What criteria apply to external links. Those I'd added for schools are shown but those for churches which I'd just added have been removed? Link for BO2SS was removed but one for moneymaking health club remains .

WP:EL gives details of our external links guidelines. Keith D (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckstones (talk • contribs) 13:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ingleby Barwick/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.

Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates as noted by the numerous tags
Switch existing references to use one of the {{Cite}} templates
Requires photographs
Needs lists turning into prose

Keith D 12:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 12:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ingleby Barwick. 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) 23:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ingleby Barwick. 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) 16:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Ingleby Barwick villages

Ingleby Barwick layout in 2014, since then housing has been built on the eastern half of the land from Basselton Beck to low lane but it might be counted as Maltby

please can somebody crop it

(I found it when looking for photos it is English but was on polish Wiki - since international wiki-articles are newer they find newer images quicker when set-up) Chocolateediter (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do with this when I'm on my other computer that has SVG editing software. Can you think of any other changes needed to it? Should I add Ingleby Manor (is that the village name?) onto it? MapEdit (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Royal charter town

I can't get my head around IB being a "royal charter town", as per recent edits. It's a very large housing estate. I can't find any references for the assertion about royal charter towns, nor even anything to describe what they are (excpetions maybe for the likes of Royal Wootton Bassett). Can anyone shed light on this? Arcturus (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arcturus:

Sorry about the royal charter bit I don’t think the town has one, I was using a little self-made template to give local towns a standard introductory paragraph and missed that this one had an unknown royal charter status. It has long been a town, however.

A royal charter isn’t that much of a big deal, meaning a place with a long established market or a town with (or had) a borough.

Before its housing boom, going back, it was a town compared to the earlier standards. It did start looking like a village when other places expanded but the housing boom definitely reconfirmed it as modern standard of a town’s size. The modern history section does elaborate on the matter and is referenced.

Until recently it was definitely seen as a housing estate (even by most townsfolk due to its lack of amenities) but has a local town council, at least definitely in the last 2 or 3 decades. It doesn’t have as much of a notable history like its two neighbours, Yarm being a known settlement built around an important river crossing and Thornaby have its own borough. At the very least it was important (well the Barwick bit was) enough to be on that historical map. Chocolateediter (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that, the settlement has recently gained a secondary school, Leisure Centre, second community building, two-ish more “villages”, and more shops, restaurants and takeaways. The town is geography isolated by water so would not merge easily with its neighbours. The rules of town-ships have weakened because of many simular cases. This has to constitute being called a town, housing estate is a laughable term to describe IB as it is basically a now only slightly-disjointed town centre (and has always been) due to it once being two or more separate places merged by filling in gaps. Look at most modern settlements and you will find absorbed farmsteads that have way to many houses around them. In fact The Rings (a successor to Barwick and Quarry farms which are basically now apart of it), Beckfields and Lowfields (er not that otherwise notable so could be a stub), these bits of IB have facilities separate to the Myton central should get there own articles to reduce this article down like Yarm has done, it seems more fitting. Chocolateediter (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chocolateediter: Thanks for amending the article. It sounded a bit pompous to assign the 'royal' epithet to a modern place like IB. Arcturus (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is at least we have good old town to describe IB, to be honest Thornaby is a market town but is in the same position that it has lost its old quarter, on the other hand, Yarm is definitely traditional. I am going to start to edge out the said villages by first making infoboxes, should “IB” be on the intro? Chocolateediter (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chocolateediter: Thanks. Not sure about the villages. At least one of them - Sober Hall - has no amenities at all and is literally a housing estate. It may be overkill to go for separate articles, but we can always see what it looks like with them in place. When you say "should IB be on the intro", do you mean something like "Ingleby Barwick - Lowfields" as an article title? Incidentally, I've put a reference in for the IB Leisure Centre and updated it. I also trimmed it a bit, but by all means put material back if you think it's helpful to the reader. Arcturus (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the three villages of The Rings, Lowfields and Beckfields. Myton can become a proper section but should always be in IB article for obvious reasons.

For the long run yea Leisure Centre information should do, Activ8 operation should be on there. If Activ8 doesn’t have an article Splash(Stockton) and other Activ8 Centres should be mentioned.

An IB Leisure Centre, Bannatyne’s( a good addition to the companies own article since it was its first) and a picture of each set of shops pictures would be nice but I’ll have to wait for them. They is a nice map of IB with an annoying big white border but I’ll add it anyways. Chocolateediter (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

all done with my mass reorganisation, what do you think. Chocolateediter (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chocolateediter: The layout looks good. So this is the model structure for the other villages, where appropriate? In fact, even areas such as Sober Hall, which, arguably, doesn't qualify as a "village", could still be documented using this layout. Good work! Arcturus (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yea each should but for now the main ones until each has enough to put down. Schools could be broke up. I honestly have no clue as to what to call the development around Ingleby Manor school since they is no sign, for history they is a good reference I added that shows old maps in the area.

Lowfields is the next contender.

previously Low Barwick
first village development
shops

Just needs the top two points elaborated upon.

What do you think Ingleby Manor development will be called:

Ingleby Manor, Ingleby and Barwick haven’t been in any of the village names
High Leven, a strong contender because of the Fox Covert hamlet and Co-op having that name above the door
Ingleby Meadow, the practice name on Low Lane
Levenvale, dental practice nearby
Little Maltby, a farm nearby and Maltby Cricket Club, ironic name because it is already bigger than Maltby
field something to fit low and beck villages
Basselton -editedChocolateediter (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arcturus:^[1]<that is a good reference which also has good references.

Would you like to create a bit of the history section, a village section or two. Chocolateediter (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2020-edited 10:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.inglebybarwicktowncouncil.org.uk/pages/history.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Orphaned references in Ingleby Barwick

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ingleby Barwick's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "gias":

From Delta Academies Trust: "DELTA ACADEMIES TRUST". get-information-schools.service.gov.uk. Department for Education. Retrieved 1 June 2018.
From Ingleby Manor Free School: "Ingleby Manor Free School & Sixth Form". get-information-schools.service.gov.uk. Department for Education. Retrieved 23 October 2018.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic and social problems

This section^[1] was removed from the article. Personally I don't feel it should be removed, but understand it is a contentious section. Especially with those who live there are don't want issues in the area highlighted. I do feel it is a well referenced section - perhaps more so than the rest of the article. Perhaps the content from that section could be better incorporated into the other sections of the article such as the Demographics section, or for the case of the Councillor assault in the the Governance section? What are people's thoughts? MapEdit (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, sorry I didn't respond before. I do think there is an added layer of summary in the content which may not be valid. So the current version of the article says "Due to its nature as a commuter town Ingleby Barwick has long faced traffic congestion at peak times. Speeding has also been a problem within the main roads in the town". The ref for this says "More than 100 drivers were caught speeding in Ingleby Barwick in a crackdown last month – with one clocked at 94mph in a 50mph zone" but doesn't quite make that wider claim that "speeding is a problem"; in fact it also says "The vast majority of drivers adhered to the speed limits". It also doesn't reference the congestion statement. I'd like to see references that back up the statements about problems in general, rather than listing individual incidents, if that makes sense. Tacyarg (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search shows there's plenty or references out there. I've some more of these in. This one section now has 22% of the references for the entire article! I would tentatively suggest that the focus on references really needs to be made in the rest of the article.MapEdit (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I removed the section without consent. It’s a matter of reference quality, not the amount of references or how well formatted the references are. One reference is from a gossip magazine and others concern reports mainly dating back a decade and a half ago, when it wasn’t even classified as a town yet. In comparison to Thornaby these type of reports are rare, if the section was formatted the same on the Thornaby article it would be quite long. Even then large parts of Thornaby are low crime with some parts having high crime rates. Why have a section about low crime then pick out each time it was reported. The more recent road upgrades can be a sentence in the transport section not a whole paragraph. Ingleby doesn’t have the best record for media reporting about the town. It is relatively isolated without a dedicated rail station, two bus services and no main high street. It is more like a group of villages with a lot of houses, at the moment since it has started to become more town-like so it might start to be reported on more often and hopefully more pictures since it is a struggle to find ones showing the place rather than fields. Chocolateediter (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just for clarity the reference isn't from "a gossip magazine" - It's from "Gossip Magazine" which was a local magazine delivered to all houses in the area which has factual articles written in it by our then local councillors to update residents on local issues, alongside advertising, and a few other local interest articles. The name of the magazine may be understandably misleading you however.

My thought is that if we can merge most of it into other sections (e.g the transport section like you suggest) it would be best, and then lets review what is left and agree on what is kept and what is not. I'd tend to agree that some of it should be removed, but we need to be careful not to remove everything in one fell swoop. MapEdit (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Road references, info was there already so it there now just to back it up. I think Gossip Magazine^[2] still exists, a pdf link would be handy, 2006 copy would be hard to track down on the internet. The information on the rest just isn’t that encyclopaedic, most of it is written like headlines. We must remember Teesside Live is owned by the same company as the frowned upon newspaper on Wikipedia, Daily Mail, so a lot of information sourced by it should be a last resort. In Ingleby’s case Teesside Live has to be used in cases to fill in gaps, D&S Times and Northern Echo are somewhat helpful to swap out for if they had also reported on it. I’ll look into a reference clean-up on the article, might not be able to find much. Just as a heads up date format is usually “# full-month year” (at-least on British articles, US full-month # year) ####-##-## short form is unhelpful for US users to understand, a lot of Wikipedians are friendly but pedantic. On my talk page you could message me if you want to learn tips. (PS I’m am on BST/UTC+1 just a bit of a night owl) Chocolateediter (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ingleby_Barwick&type=revision&diff=1012898363&oldid=1012420566
^ [1] if it is the same

[1] ttp://www.inglebybarwicktowncouncil.org.uk/pages/history.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ingleby_Barwick&type=revision&diff=1012898363&oldid=1012420566

[3] [1] if it is the same

[1]

[1]

[2]