Talk:Lundy

Customs check

"Residents did not pay taxes to England and had to pass through customs when they travelled to and from Lundy Island."

Is this still the case? Seabhcán 13:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No! seglea 22:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC) (regular visitor to Lundy)

When did that change? JAJ 01:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Income tax was imposed on the residents of Lundy in 1974 (source: ILN, v.3:no.1, 1974).

Rats

According to this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4617693.stm rats have been eradicated from the island. DrHydeous

Fixed accordingly. -- Hoary 05:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Legal Latin

There is now a substantial wodge of Latin within the article, which (as it's Latin) will be incomprehensible to the great majority of readers, and which (we are told) "has been (very freely) translated as" a wodge of English legalese whose significance I can't fathom. If the translation is free, surely we can dispense with the legalistic lack of punctuation, and perhaps also with a lot of the legalistic throat clearing. Could somebody who understands legal documents of this kind, or knows a bit about the history of Lundy, perhaps summarize what, if anything, is significant about this? Thanks. -- Hoary 05:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Endemics

Whom discovered that the endemic beetles on Lundy were not endemic and when? Please reference these things!!!

The current [Dec 2006] assistant warden told me.

Moving

Do someone know if it's possible to move on the Lundy? I mean to live there, not just a trip. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.70.255.54 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Generally, no, it's not. The Landmark Trust, which administers the island, does, however have a few people who live there temporarily as volunteers or employees.--MichaelMaggs 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

? copyright problem

I've started editing this article & noticed that most of the history & ownership section is directly copied from History of Lundy - does anyone know if this was done with the owners permission? I will try to edit this to overcome the problem, but any help appreciated as it will take me a day or two.— Rod ^talk 16:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have contributed to earlier drafts of the history section: Ithe site referred to only quotes commonly held interpretations of Island history. Unless there is evidencew of cut and pate, there are no cpyright issues. The history is very well documented Peter Robson--Lundypete (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

I've taken on this article for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good Article candidates page. I've given the article a brief read through and you'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria. I will be carrying out an in-depth review and will post the findings below. If you have any questions then feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Many thanks, Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 12:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:

1 Well written

1.1 Prose

I think the article would definitely benefit from a copy-edit to increase the readability. There are no major issues, but here are a few suggestions that should improve the flow of the article:

• Overuse of the word 'about' in the lead section  Done- the specific distances and areas may be better off in a new subsection, away from the lead. Done
• "...It has a resident population of 28 people (2007), almost all of whom live and work in the village on the south of the island." What do these people do? Having followed some of the links in the article it seems that these people are volunteers, maybe this should be mentioned. Done
• "One-day visits are most usual" Needs rewording - maybe mention the extent of excursions or organised trips etc. Done
• Government and politics section - consider merging the first 2 sentences. Done
• Geology section - the last sentence could perhaps be split up, it's all squashed into one sentence for no reason. Done
• Birds subsection - the first paragraph contradicts with earlier statements about how the island got its name.  Done
• "...Lundy is home to an unusual range of mammals..." should this read "a range of unusual mammals"? Done
• "The behaviour of the Soay Sheep (Ovis aries) on the island has been shown to vary their behaviours..." - beginning of sentence is repeated. Done
• Deed quote contains random characters "&c" Done
• King built the Castle - should this read "the King"? Done
• Lundy stamps section - The last few sentences could do with being rewritten and integrated, they read like trivia.
• "...with flying between 12 noon and 2pm, making it ideal for weekend visits and short breaks." - last part of sentence reads like an advertisement, should probably be removed. Done
• "The heliport is basically a field" and "It consists essentially of a shed" - be more specific - Is the heliport a field? Is it a shed? Consider removing these ambiguous comparisons altogether. Done
• " If you are staying on Lundy..." - this reads like a travel guide, maybe change to "those staying on Lundy" Done
• "to enable people food, fuel, farming and building materials safe access to the top of the island" - slightly muddled statement, not entirely sure what is trying to be said. Done
• Economy section - this is all repeated information from earlier in the article. Done

1.2 Manual of Style

• Sections - a restructure would help here. The present sections are confusing, nearly half the article falls under "history". I would suggest something along the lines of Geography, Ecology, History (split into subsections!), transport etc. Done
  • The "See Also" section should come before the references section, per these guidelines. Done
• Wikilinking - generally fine, I noticed there's a repeated wikilink to the Blackbird page though.
• Units of measurement - again mostly fine, but there's at least one instance of using ft instead of feet, in the "Human habitation" section. Done

2 Factual accuracy

Mostly fine, though the "Transport" and "Economy" sections could do with a few more references. There may be some original research in the former section, particularly with regards to the cafe - this will need to be removed if no sources can be found. Done

3 Coverage

The article seems to be largely focussed on the history of the island, something which will need to be dealt with. There are certain basic sections missing, such as climate, tourism etc. which are quite large gaps, especially when compared to the almost overly-detailed "Human habitation" section.

4 Neutrality

No signs of bias in the article and a neutral tone is present throughout.

5 Stability

No problems here.

6 Images

• Images - Gallery sections are discouraged, seeing as there are only a few images there they can probably be integrated into the article where appropriate, or removed if not necessary.  Done
  • The map would be better off in the infobox, with the image of the cove later in the article. At present, the image placement causes some display issues (particularly the map after the infobox). Done
  • Captions - The map refers to Great Britain, perhaps this should be the British Isles as that is what's shown. Done

As a result of the above concerns I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although in some circumstances the hold period can be briefly extended). To help with tracking, editors may like to strike through each comment as it is dealt with, or use the template  Done after each comment.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or are ready for a re-review. In any case I'll check back here in seven days (around 23rd September). Regards, Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 20:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I've tackled most of the issues raised. I can't find the repeated wikilink to the Blackbird. I can't find the info for a climate section. Also I've left the gallery as I don't think there is room to neatly fit them into the article & couldn't decide what to remove. Any further edits or comments welcome.— Rod ^talk 11:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The map is really ugly. If anyone knows of someone who could do a better job, that would be good. Otherwise, what about getting rid of it entirely? --MichaelMaggs 12:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You could try Jza84 who has done a number of the maps for the template {{Infobox UK place}} Keith D 13:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've asked. --MichaelMaggs 15:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the article mostly meets the Good Article criteria, agreeing with most of the comments by the previous reviewer. However, there are a couple of major issues that should be addressed. First, I would promote the history section, since it contains much detail, I would put it right after the etymology section, near the front of the article. Most wikipedia articles follow this guideline with respect to their history sections. Done

The 'government and politics' section really doesn't have much to do with politics, and with a very low population, I would remove the words 'and politics' from the subsection header. In fact, it would be better to rename the section as 'administration', since the island is really "administered" by other districts and jurisdictions, as opposed to being self-governing. I also would move this near the end of the article, possibly as the last section, since it's not all that important. Done

The section entitled 'lundy stamps' is actually in violation of WP:MSH, as the article title should not be used in section headers. Since this also kind of deals with the administration of the island, I would think it would help to move its contents to the newly-renamed 'administration' section, which would also contribute to beefing up the section a bit. The Lundy stamps section is also completely unsourced as well. It doesn't look like it would be WP:OR, as it looks like it could be historical fact, so finding a citation shouldn't be a problem. Done

The 'geography' section is very short. Certainly, more information can be added here. One suggestion to beef up the section might be to add a link to the google map location of the island, using the {{coor dms}} template. It should also have some information on the island's climate as well.

The major quotation in the 'knights templar' section does not have a reference (reference #16 does not cite the quote). All quotes should have references, per GA criteria. Done

Once these issues (and any others from the previous reviewer) are cleared up, I think the article can be promoted to GA status. Cheers! Dr. Cash 04:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tackled many of the issues raised.— Rod ^talk 08:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The article looks good now, and will be listed at WP:GA. Cheers! Dr. Cash 20:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Info that might need a mention

It's a little ironic that the article's being nominated for GA without the mention of the fact that the island is currently closed (and has been since the 23rd) due to an outbreak of norovirus. This is easily sourced, from the BBC website amongst others - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/21/nlundy121.xml ; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7006182.stm ; http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8GZrqKOnU0EM3bis1X97uK0sxAA; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2500379.ece

Also, there is little to no mention in the article as to why people would want to visit it - no mention of the unique geological features or the island's popularity with climbers either. 81.153.168.16 14:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

GA articles have to be "broad in coverage", rather than comprehensive, so I see no irony. Any article can be improved, including this one, so if you have information about the unique geology, popularity with climbers or anything else relevant then why not add it? --Malleus Fatuarum 20:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ottomans?

Is the Ottoman reference just vandalism? The reference link looks like a malware site of some sort —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.189.78 (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the reference (No 16) - this was an English language description of the Turkish navy when I added it (the same as used on Ottoman Empire) but now I presume it is a 404 unobtainable error in Turkish. It may work again in a few days - if not I will remove the reference & look for an alternative source - possibly http://www.everythingexmoor.org.uk/_L/Lundy_Island.php .— Rod ^talk 13:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well how about the timesonline as a quote http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article1449736.ece, will put the information back in . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.211.39 (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Main Image

There is currently an IfD discussion about this image. I would like to put to the community this: do we want the current image as the main one, this one that is currently up for deletion or both on the article. This has been brought up due to the comment by Caltrop [quite rightly] that the new image has no grid or scale. Which image do you prefer? ><RichardΩ612 13:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The current main image is Image:Lundy outline map.png which was kindly created by Jza84 specially for this page at my request. If the image needs a scale or grid, I suggest asking the author if he'd add one. In fact, I will do that now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It pains me to say that the addition of a scale bar is beyond my very limited cartographical skill. I don't think I'd be able to do this with the limited source material I have sorry. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the scale in Image:Lundy24511.png is useful. I think the newer image should be used in its place. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pirates

Interesting info in the Islam in England article.

From 1609 to 1616, England lost 466 ships to Barbary pirates, who sold the passengers into slavery in North Africa. In 1625, it was reported that Lundy, an island in the Bristol Channel which had been a pirate lair for much of the previous half century, had been occupied by three Turkish pirates who were threatening to burn Ilfracombe; Algerine rovers were using the island as a base in 1635, although the island had itself been attacked and plundered by a Spanish raid in 1633. Around 1645, Barbary pirates under command of the Dutch renegade Jan Janszoon operating from the Moroccon port of Salé occupied Lundy, before he was expelled by the Penn. During this time there were reports of captured slaves being sent to Algiers and of the Islamic flag flying over Lundy.

JHJPDJKDKHI! (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Lundy.

1 History 1.7 20th & 21st Centuries: Twentieth-Century history seems rather sparse. e.g. aren't there still 2 Heinkels rusting on the isle? Did their crews bail out or were the remains seen to? For World War II buffs, more information would be desirable on how this conflict affected LundyEdJogg (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosebill (talk • contribs) 20:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions/comments from User:86.133.242.124

An unregistered editor (User:86.133.242.124) has added various comments and questions into the text of the article - which I thought might get better responses on the talk page - therefore moving them here:

• "the village of Marisco at the south of the island" - name not on the OS map, and I can't find any refs that confirm this is the name of the *village*
• "The island is an unparished area of Torridge district" - I don't fully understand what this means, but Lundy is listed as a parish at http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/improving_our_services/facts_figures_and_statistics/factsandfigures/thecounty/geographicareas/geogareastorrpar.htm

• According to page 15 (Community Appraisals and Parish Plans in Torridge) of North Devon District Council & Torridge District Council Core Strategy DPDs: Evidence Base Lundy is unparished. I will add a citation.— Rod ^talk 10:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone help with either of these?— Rod ^talk 09:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Rod, thanks for putting these on the talk page. Another comment from me:

• "According to genealogist Edward MacLysaght the surname Lundy is from Norman de la Lounde, a name recorded in medieval documents in counties Tipperary and Kilkenny in Ireland." -- Fair enough, but what, if anything, does this have to do with the island? That is not explained. 86.134.72.35 (talk) 12:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I have just removed a large chunk of text from this article which was copied from this page but I'm not sure I've done this correctly or caught everything - so could others check please.— Rod ^talk 08:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Seal's Rock to here.--NHSavage (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Draft merged section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NHSavage/sandbox#draft_merge_of_seal.27s_rock_to_lundy

--NHSavage (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Seems reasonable to me. I don't think Seals Rock is notable enough on its own. BTW I think the banners are supposed to go on the article rather than the talk page per Help:Merging & all discussion on one talk page.— Rod ^talk 18:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ooops. You are correct. Moved. I'll leave the other discussion page as once it is created, I feel it's better to leave it in place. (crikey I've got rusty at this).--NHSavage (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now completed the merger. I know it wasn't a week but in light of the small size of the article and the islet, I felt it was appropriate to be bold.--NHSavage (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Civil War period

'In the English Civil War Thomas Bushell held Lundy for King Charles I, rebuilding Marisco Castle and garrisoning the island at his own expense. He was a friend of Francis Bacon, a strong supporter of the Royalist cause and an expert on mining and coining.'

Could someone please connect the dots here? The Francis Bacon link is to someone who died in 1626, long before the Civil War era. What is the connection, unless it is a gratuitous connection to someone whose name some of us are familiar with? Grandma Roses (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Having done a bit of searching around I found the exact same sentence on this web page and this one so I think it should removed as a copyright violation. It does not occur in reference 26 which is used as the citation for that paragraph.— Rod ^talk 19:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Marisco Castle???

In the main body of the text it says about the castle commonly being mistakenly referred to as Marisco castle, but under the image it has the caption "Marisco Castle". Surely this doesn't make sense? Does the castle have another name, if so it should be changed, or the caption removed, as simply "castle" would surely not be necessary? Or maybe the caption should read "the castle commonly mistakenly referred to as "Marisco Castle""? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.120.25 (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I imagine it really means "the castle is called Marisco Castle, but this is a mistaken connection because the castle was not built by the Marisco's", so it does not mean that there is another name in current use or that the name Marisco Castle should not be used. So the problem is the word "sometimes" used in the article ("usually" might be more accurate). Meowy 12:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A proposal to remedy the article's inconsistent display of units.

At the moment the article has an inconsistent display of units of measure.

• The height of Beacon Hill is listed twice, once with feet first and the second time with metres first.
• Two lighthouses are metric first while the other one is imperial first.
• Some other passages are metric first while others are imperial first.

I believe the article would be better if it was consistent and I propose making it metric first throughout. This would require flipping the display of units than at present. Are there any comments or concerns? Michael Glass (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because metric first is your preferred order, as this is UK related I would suggest that imperial is more appropriate. Keith D (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I left out the word "less" from my proposal. The last sentence should have read "This would require less flipping the display of units than at present."

Your all imperial proposal could be done, of course, but then the article would be even less consistent with the sources quoted and also inconsistent with [MOSNUM]. Would you simply prefer to follow the sources or would you prefer to follow MOSNUM and keep it miles first but mostly metric first elsewhere (except for buildings designed in feet and inches)? Michael Glass (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Source based units have been rejected numerous times when you have tried to push them so I would avoid that approach and follow the MOSMUN and go with miles first as per UK article preferences, I would also go with imperial first for heights in this case. Keith D (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Trinity house generally gives the height of lighthouses in metres (as with the focal length of the lights). However, it also gives the dimensions of the old Lundy lighthouse in feet. See [[1]] [[2]]. If you're not happy with describing the old lighthouse in metres, then I suggest we leave unchanged the heights of all the lighthouses.

Do we regard an archeological dig as a structure? If so, it should be feet and inches first. MOSNUM gives no exception for putting acres before hectares or the height of hills in feet before the height in metres, and as the best data for this was metric, that would appear to be the way to go. How would you feel about that? Michael Glass (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Revised proposal

As suggested above I propose that the article follows MOSNUM in putting both mentions of the height of Beacon Hill in metres and referring to the area of the island in hectares first. Are there any comments or concerns in following MOSNUM in these two instances? Michael Glass (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Changed as per the above proposal. Michael Glass (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Micronation?

The article explicitly states "Although the island was ruled as a virtual fiefdom, its owner never claimed to be independent of the United Kingdom, in contrast to later territorial 'micronations'". This seems to be stating quite categorically that Lundy should not be classified as a micronation, which is defined as "an entity that claims to be an independent nation or state but is not officially recognized by world governments or major international organizations", yet it is included in that category (all emphasis mine). I therefore propose that Lundy be removed from the Micronation category. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Micronations#Lundy. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Problem Neolithic-Mesolithic

This sentence is wrong, or at least needs explanation:

"Lundy has evidence of visitation or occupation from the Neolithic period onward, with Mesolithic flintwork, Bronze Age burial mounds, four inscribed gravestones from the early medieval period."

In fact the Mesolithic normally predates the Neolithic.

Lundy: Marine Habitat

The text currently reads: "In 1971 a proposal was made by the Lundy Field Society to establish a marine reserve, and the survey was led by Dr Keith Hiscock, supported by a team of students from Bangor University". I am reluctant to change that wording as I don't know all of the surveys which Keith may have led. However, the principal survey in preparation for the marine reserve was carried out, in the summer of 1977, by recent graduates (not students) of what was then University College Swansea (not our rivals at the then University College of North Wales, Bangor). There were at least five of us (maybe more -- memories fade), with Richard D.M. Nash in the lead role, along with Keith and Bernie Picton, from Ulster.

My source is personal experience, having been one of the diving team. A report was written, and probably put out by the Oil Pollution Research Unit (which was Keith's employer at the time), but I am not sure that I ever saw a copy.

I will leave it to anyone who knows the origins of the existing wording to decide whether a change would be appropriate.

Trevor Kenchington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.142.55.190 (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There seem to have been a series of studies (eg Hiscock 1997, Hiscock (1985) Rep. Lundy Fld. Soc. 36, Hiscock Rep. Lundy Fld Soc., 25 (1974), King Rep. Lundy Fld. Soc., 27 (1976), George (date unclear), and loads more. A starting point would be The archives of the Lundy Field Society. I think there are too many to include but if there were one specific paper which you think is key just say which one.— Rod ^talk 19:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge

Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, like this one.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

• Core articles
• Missing article hotlist
• Missing photograph hotlist

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

• Bristol (Day 1-3)
• Cornwall and Scilly (Day 4-6)
• Devon (Day 7-9)
• Dorset (Day 10-12)
• Gloucestershire (Day 13-15)
• Somerset (Day 16-18)
• Wiltshire (Day 19-21)

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod ^talk 16:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lundy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722070224/http://sherpa.bl.uk/42/01/philatelicresearchbl.pdf to http://sherpa.bl.uk/42/01/philatelicresearchbl.pdf

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) 12:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lundy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320020249/http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/improving_our_services/facts_figures_and_statistics/factsandfigures/thecounty/geographicareas/geogareastorrpar.htm to http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/improving_our_services/facts_figures_and_statistics/factsandfigures/thecounty/geographicareas/geogareastorrpar.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070908001850/http://www.devon.gov.uk/localstudies/110578/1.html to http://www.devon.gov.uk/localstudies/110578/1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160522060125/http://www.localcollectorspost.org/id21.html to http://www.localcollectorspost.org/id21.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205015226/http://www.sgurr.co.uk/lundycam/ to http://www.sgurr.co.uk/lundycam

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) 04:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Maps in lighthouse infoboxes

This article now has three infoboxes, one at the top and one for each of the north and south lighthouses. This means that, on my screen, part of the second is next to the references. This could be reduced as both have a map showing the island outlined in red but they don't add any useful information. This seems to be generated from Template:Infobox lighthouse and I can't see any way to remove it - anyone any ideas? I will also ask at the template talkpage.— Rod ^talk 17:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to helpful advice at Template talk:Infobox lighthouse#Maps in the infobox I have now removed these and they take up a bit less space.— Rod ^talk 19:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Lighthouses

I think it's time to split off the lighthouses to their own page, as with other lighthouses qv Dungeness lighthouse for example. As noted above, the page is congested with three infoboxes and there is plenty for a standalone, with precedent. Suggestions for a title for them, or whether to give each lighthouse a start page of its own would be appreciated. If no one gets to it, when I havefree time I will look to do it. Mramoeba (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Good idea - the page is getting pretty congested now. I'd suggest Lundy South Lighthouse, Lundy North Lighthouse and Lundy Old Light. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I have split to Lighthouses on Lundy. If you think they should be split further then go ahead, but I would suggest the 1897 pair might be better covered together? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

‘Unnecessary POV’

On 10/10/19, I added this to the lede: In the 1920s, one self-proclaimed king, Martin Harman, tried to issue his own coinage and was duly fined by the House of Lords. The word ‘duly’ was deleted by 45.47.85.167 on the grounds that it was unnecessary POV, as though it indicated approval of the outcome. It merely meant ‘in due course’. Valetude (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Duly is fine in this context. The lede however seems a little scrappy over all, and could use a rewrite. It should reflect the sum of the whole article. Mramoeba (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Which parts of the article do you feel to be unrepresented in the lede? Valetude (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Barbara Vine

That my mention of Lundy View House in the Barbara Vine novel has been deletet, is probable a great improvement for the article in the eye of the destroyer: as long as he is happy, I don't mind... --Terminallyuncool2 (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I fail, however, to see why then e.g. the following examples of contributions have not also been eliminated:

"Lundy figures in the 1919 novel Last of the Grenvilles (1919) by Frederick Harcourt Kitchin (published under his pseudonym, Bennett Copplestone)."

"The island is mentioned in a section of W. N. P. Barbellion's Journal of a Disappointed Man (1919), titled "On Lundy Island"." --Terminallyuncool2 (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Terminallyuncool2, the reasons for your edit being reverted appear in the edit summary, which includes links that would be worth your reading. As to the other items, whether they are problematic or not has no bearing on whether your addition was. You've made over 40 edits now, so you should really be familiar with WP:CIVIL. MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Read, but not understood in view of the other items quoted. Perhaps you should read the Vine novel. The most important thing, however, is that I will not debase myself by entering into an editing war; perhaps at 5:41 in the morning I might myself be inclined to censor others... At 10:32, I am quite conscious of my own limitations... Terminallyuncool2 (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

National Trust pilot

Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Lundy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This 2007 promotion contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). Most of the information should be easy to source, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rupples, are you able to source the remaining non-cited information? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The first missing citation's easy, but I was reticent putting it in thinking it may come across as promotional. I've added one now, do you think it's Ok? I'll run through the others and report back to you here. Rupples (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, AirshipJungleman29, thanks for the politely written nudge and good you did so because tbh I got a bit frustrated not being able to find sources for the remaining citations needed a few days ago and had given up. This evening though, using different search terms has, I hope you agree, proved productive. The only one remaining is Beacon Hill Cemetery — I've added two citations to the first paragraph which support the specific Lundy content but the last bit kind of draws parallels and I can't locate a specific source, so haven't removed the citation needed tag but will leave to your discretion as to whether it is still required. Rupples (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Rupples, your efforts have been a great success. I think I can close this reassessment as a keep, notwithstanding the remaining two citation needed tags—if you can at some point find sources for them, that would be ideal, but I think it's good enough for now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.