Talk:Mansfield

IP editing in January 2023

I have noticed that a series of IP addresses have made changes to Mansfield and other surrounding articles in early 2023. I surmise that these changes have all been made by one individual:

2A02:C7C:56C5:2600:7158:E147:F71C:F7F3

2A02:C7C:56C5:2600:3CB2:9E80:3F42:F050

2A02:C7C:56C5:2600:9962:E6C4:CF0B:9BBF

2A02:C7C:56C5:2600:F9B5:C2B4:3A:9C2C

2A02:C7C:56C5:2600:8CDD:C573:3CE8:D8D

The edit summaries of two consecutive changes assert that this IP editor moved content which they had originally written: "This was originally written by me but fits better into the town centre area rather than the Civic Centre bit." and "This fits in better into the town centre section. This was written by myself.".

This editor did not write this prose originally, it was Rocknrollmancer in this 14 January 2022 change.

I left a message at User talk:2A02:C7C:56C5:2600:8CDD:C573:3CE8:D8D, but now realise it's possible it will not be seen there due to the to the dynamic switching basis of the ISP, so I am repeating the request here:

Can you please explain what you meant by these two edit summary statements attributing the prose to yourself? Thank you. 82.13.47.210 (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Large scale deletion without discussion

DragonofBatley has deleted a whole (sourced) section of 6,729 bytes just 18 minutes after I effected an expansion of the section. Some of this was written a few years ago and involves major (capital) crimes covered by BBC (one of which spawned a television drama), and is not man bites dog tabloidism.

Per WP:BRD I have boldly reverted and invite uninvolved editors to comment. I surmise the deleter is now sufficiently-experienced not to edit war. Assume that I and the other contributors feel there is good reason to include, and that it is wholly relevant to the article.-- 82.13.47.210 (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Your additions aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia article, 82.13.47.210. The heading "Tragic deaths" is a WP:NPOV violation but even if that were fixed, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Some of the other "In the news" content could perhaps be integrated into the history section, but it's not appropriate to have a list of news stories about the town in the format that you've restored. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd revert it and remove it all. It reads like an obituary DragonofBatley (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

removed it until a discussion has been reached. The anon readded after starting a discussion. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• Do not reinstate "Tragic deaths" and Amber Peat — on grounds of WP:NOTNEWS. There are likely hundreds of murders/suicides over the years reported in local news. Wikipedia doesn't record them. The cliff-face collapses — possible inclusion in history or geography section if significant, probably the BGS report and one news source. Murderers, Christopher and Susan Edwards — move to history section, but trim, can be linked to Murders of William and Patricia Wycherley and Landscapers (TV series). Channel 4 worst places — the viewpoint is at one specific point in time, possible inclusion under Cultural section. Do not reinstate section "In the news" because it's a magnet for adding local news content, not suited for Wikipedia. Rupples (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Pictures

Arising from an AN/I discussion (still in progress), I'm substantially restoring the appearance of the article as it was prior to this edit in August 2023 by Devokewater, in which all the images were moved to a gallery at the bottom. The article has since changed—and more images have been added to the gallery—so I'm taking the opportunity to re-examine where best to place what images, and what contextual information is needed in the captions and/or the text. Opening a section for discussion as promised. I plan to resume in a few hours if no one else has either reverted or taken over. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the article, lacking a gallery, is somewhat overloaded with images. I can count 39, most of which are quite large. The new image of the Buttermarket Monument is an improvement on the pervious one. But the main problem is the text sandwich, e.g. the whole top part of the text for the "Economy" section is sandwiched between two side columns of large images? Any ideas? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@MatthewDavid41 perhaps you could comment. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi There,

I know I thought entirely the same as you. I have reduced the size of most of the images, how does that look to you? I’m sure they could be reduced further. I have taken the image of Market Street out too. Let me know your thoughts?

Thank you

Matt MatthewDavid41 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. There is a lot of good guidance at MOS:IMAGES. Specifically the sections on image sizes (changing image size is not a solution to there being too many images) and the "sandwich" effect are very relevant here – so I have removed image size hardcoding and reduced the number of left floating images. The purpose of images is to convey information to the reader that helps them to understand the topic of the article – we should ask ourselves "does this substantially aid the reader's understanding of Mansfield above and beyond what they could get from reading the text or clicking through to linked articles". So I've cut a few which it seems to me probably fail that test. Joe D (t) 16:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. I'm not convinced that the image of the Buttermarket Monument adds much and think looks a bit awkward where it in at the left. I see that a gallery was tried back in August 2023, but was reverted by Yngvadottir. So maybe that's not the way to go? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

So I removed the market street image, it didn’t look very clear so I’m hoping the economy section looks a bit better?

I think I’ll put the monument into the centre but moved it further down the page? MatthewDavid41 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that image might be better placed at the Buttercross article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you are right I better have a look at my laptop and not on my phone it’s so difficult to do this on a phone isn’t it? MatthewDavid41 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The way articles appear on laptop and on phone are very different. I think many editors (like me) make judgements based wholly laptop appearance. I'm not sure how the differences can be fully accommodated. I'd suggest that any image that floats at the left next to a section heading should be avoided. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

So ive had another go 5th time lucky... lol do you think it looks better, it appears to be in line with the text on the ancient markets? Thank you for helping me MatthewDavid41 (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd be happier if it wasn't there at all. But perhaps we'll see what Joe D has to say. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you MatthewDavid41 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and thanks for the work. I still think the underlying problem is an excess of images, and personally I'd lose both Westgate and the Memorial Garden rather than the Buttermarket Monument. (And if someone were to write an article on Waverley House, that image could be removed here ....) The sandwiching is indeed undesirable, but the humongous infobox is part of the issue, reducing the amount of the article where left-side images can be used at all. The gallery solution was very bad IMO: acres of prose followed by a photo album. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks Yngvadottir. I think a gallery can sometimes be successfully used to "soak up" extra images, with the best ones placed sparingly in the prose. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I will try and find some historical information on Waverley House and add to the page near the image.

I moved the memorial garden to the green recovery paragraph as it links in with that. So it may fit in better.

Thank you again MatthewDavid41 (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I propose to move File:Buttercross Westgate Mansfield.jpg to the Buttercross article. Any objections? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that’s a good idea! Thank you

I’ve added the population of the town of Mansfield too, splitting it from the district. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a very useful improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

That’s what I thought. Thanks MatthewDavid41 (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you think we also still need the population for Mansfield District in the lead section? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn’t have said we do. As I guess that could go into the Mansfield District page but not the town itself?

I reverted the Cavendish Monument title in the info box images back to how it was, it was changed to the Bentinck Memorial but it’s not what is recorded on Historic England’s or Nottinghamshire County Council websites. Do you think would be ok?

I removed another image from the parks section for Carr Bank Park, as there is a image in the info box. Anything to free up space. Etc MatthewDavid41 (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

on second thoughts the Carr Bank Park image is back in again. I thought if there is an image of something in the info box a further image can’t be added further down is that not right? Oh I don’t know 🤷‍♂️ MatthewDavid41 (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think any facts about Mansfield District should go in Mansfield District. I wasn't sure about Cavendish Monument vs Bentinck Memorial, so thanks for correcting - we should follow the sources. But perhaps there should be an explanation of "Cavendish"? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes you are right. So in the 19 century history section there is a bit which mentions the monument, I’ve just changed it to reflect the name. Do think that would suffice?

thank you MatthewDavid41 (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I mean I guess there could be a link to Lord George Bentinck as the name Cavendish was in his name? I think I’ll need to be guided by you on this?

thanks MatthewDavid41 (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I have corrected the source there, as it was pointing to the page for Nottingham, rather than Mansfield. Although Bentinck is mentioned, I don't see any explanation of Cavendish. I was wondering who or what Cavendish was. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I thought that I’m not sure but I know there is a Cavendish Square in London with a statue of him https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1066308

Maybe the Cavendish title came with more status or nobility? Like Bess of Hardwick married William Cavendish. You’re right there it seems strange. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be just part of his full name: Lord William George Frederick Cavendish-Scott-Bentinck. It seems the double-barrelled name arose from the marriage of Dorothy Bentinck, Duchess of Portland in 1766. Not sure how this could be explained succinctly. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

It’s so interesting what you find out. Like I didn’t understand in the bit about Mansfield Manor that the 7th Earl of Shrewsbury married what would be classed as being his step sister , Bess of Hardwicks daughter… MatthewDavid41 (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)