Talk:Nile Clumps

Please explain why you deleted the map link. Cite any applicable rule and your authority. R Pollack

After converting the latitude/longitude (which were incorrect, by the way) to use Template:coor d, the map link was redundant. Template:coor d uses Wikipedia:Map sources, which include Windows Live Local. Retaining the link would thus have been redundant and favouring one external provider over another. References:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Geographical coordinates

"Geographical coordinates on Earth should be entered using a template."

Wikipedia:External_links

"It is always preferred to use internal links over external links."

Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided

"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article."

Is this sufficient? EdC 21:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. Did you look at the map? It provided a very good aerial photograph of the site with icons showing the location of the clumps and two nearby sites. It added to the value of the article. If you have anything better please include it. Otherwise, reinstate the map link. Thanks for correcting the coordinates, but they are a poor substitute for a map. R Pollack

How does that differ from the Windows Live Local link in Wikipedia:Map sources? EdC 23:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think most people would be baffled by the Map Sources page. My map is simple, it works and it includes annotations. In this case only three, for the moment. I hope to add more information over time. On other maps I have several dozen annotations and marked paths. in general I think you should not delete other peoples work from an article unless it is wrong, 'illegal', or you can replace it with something significantly better. R Pollack

In what way is it "your" map? It appears to be a link to Windows Live Local, not to your website. EdC 02:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked the location of the Swarland Woods and the coordinates originally given were wrong. I think the woods may be just to the west of the Nelson Obelisk. Local authorities have recently restored the obelisk erected by Davidson at Swarland. They have erected a plaque which notes that Davidson planed the woods as described in the article, and that they were to the west of the obelisk. Mrslippery 10:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That Blog

Well MrSlippery you seem determined to include that blog in this article, so let me explain why Wikipedia doesn't include blog posts in its articles. First, you might like to acquaint yourself with WP:EL. Specifically you should check "Links normally to be avoided", point number 11. Now that you've read that, let me explain to you why this is extremely relevant to this article.

The blogger who wrote this article is sadly ill informed. Lets look at the opening line of his article: "The Nile Clumps are clumps of beech trees planted to represent the positions of ships at the Battle of the Nile.". Well, maybe. It is rumoured, mainly by local lore, that they may have been planted to represent the battle. The jury is still very much out on it and probably always will be. You see, there is no written evidence and scarce little proof that they even date from the same time. Some historic maps even show clumps of tress there before the battle of the Nile. Anyone reading a Wikipedia article should expect that it only links to verifiable and authoritative research. Linking to a page that has an incorrect opening statement may lead some people to believe that it is fact, based on their expectations of Wikipedia's standards.

Several other such issues exist in the article. There are also basic factual errors. The 5 ships supposedly lost when the A303 was built do exist, on the north side of the road. They are the ones marked on the map closest to the A303. Several were replanted and new growth on the side of the road reflects this.

Interestingly, the author of the blog also decided to trespass on private property when he took the photos of the clumps. Again this is a problem for Wikipedia's standards as it might suggest that the clumps are accessible. In fact not one of them is on open access land.

The ideas the blogger has for the saving of the clumps are also ill informed. Whilst the replanting of over 2000 trees may seem trivial to him, there is the problem that several clumps are on scheduled land. Several thousand year old monuments exist in that area and their scheduled status overrules the clumps totally. In many instances the enthusiastic planting of several clumps is exactly what should be avoided, as now the closely placed trees are stifling each others growth. These ideas are not suitable for Wikipedia content and someone wanting to find out more about the site should not expect to be led to a page with ill informed ideas and opinions that are not researched or validated.

The blog itself is interesting but provides little of substance beyond the facts already stated in the article. I hope you understand the importance of trying to uphold the standards of Wikipedia and that this is why the link to the blog is always removed.

Cheers, Psychostevouk (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A link

Here's an interesting Daily Mail link which might be of use for the article [1] 86.148.50.100 (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed, although I have a couple of issues with some of the press that has surrounded this - the clumps weren't 'found' using Google Earth (see The Sun)- decent mapping has existed since well before the internet and google wasn't used at all in the research of the monument or the new information board. I'm trying to think of a rewrite to incorporate it and the Telegraph article so I'll hopefully have it in soon. Cheers Psychostevouk (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)