Jump to content

Talk:Cheddar, Somerset

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCheddar, Somerset has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 6, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
March 5, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved the two requested pages. I did not perceive a clear verdict on whether Cheddar cheese should be moved to Cheddar (i.e. that the cheese is the primary topic). That could be settled by another move proposal if people still think it's a good idea after reading over all the comments here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{requested move/dated}}

– I can't believe this has never been brought up in the (checking here) almost thirteen years of this article's existence. (Seriously, look at the history. It was created just six days after 9/11.) The cheese is almost certainly what most people looking for when they search "Cheddar"; pretty much everywhere outside the UK (and arguably many if not most places within the UK as well, especially if the people in question don't live in the southwest part of the country), whenever the word Cheddar is used, it almost always refers to the cheese. In fact, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to argue that the disambig page should be kept as is and the Cheddar article should become a redirect to the cheese. Literally millions of people worldwide eat things with Cheddar cheese, while not nearly as many people would know about a relatively small town in England (especially with several larger and better-known cities and towns nearby, such as Bath) without having looked it up first. 128.206.196.188 (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support If there's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it's probably Cheddar cheese. It's certainly not this village. Last month, the cheese received nearly five times as many views as the village, and some of the village's 5000 or so visitors were surely looking for the cheese or another topic. While this title has been stable, that doesn't necessarily mean it's where it should be. Well done on bringing this up. For now, the move as proposed is fine, but if there's consensus here to make the cheese primary topic, I wouldn't oppose that. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is extremely difficult to provide any evidence about what people were looking for when they visit any article. They may have been looking for the better known Cheddar Gorge which, if we are using page views as an indicator, had 13263 views in the last 90 days (as opposed to 15378 for the village and 71215 for the cheese). Ghits and google searches are not much better as an indicator but if I search for "Cheddar" on Google the first is the village web site followed by the gorge, then the wp article on the village before the wp article on the cheese.— Rod talk 20:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm afraid Google is becoming less and less a useful tool for these sorts of discussions as they try to personalize results. I'm in the US, and my top results for cheddar are our page on the cheese, an American restaurant chain, and a smartphone app. In fact, I went through the first five pages of results without seeing a mention of the village—not even our article, which is surprising. I get the same results in a private browsing window, which makes me think this is IP based.
Again, I'm not necessarily arguing that the cheese is primary right now, though I suspect it could be. Incidentally, when I performed the above Google search I ran across this recent Boston Globe piece saying that Cheddar cheese is "the most popular variety of cheese worldwide, and also the most studied." --BDD (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The same argument could probably be made for just about every cheese named after its town or county of origin, along with wines and probably a host of other foodstuffs. If people don't know the difference between Cheddar and Cheddar Cheese, or even that it might just be named after a place or person, this is a great learning opportunity for them. Wikipedia provides plenty of guidance to the right article; type Chedd into the search box and Cheddar cheese is right there in the drop down menu for you to choose from. If WP:PRIMARYTOPIC really suggests that a disruptive and illogical move like this is a good idea, then perhaps it needs rethinking. --Derek Andrews (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. It's going to depend on the usual metrics, such as page views. When I hear "Kalamata" I think olives, but we have Kalamata, on the city, as primary versus Kalamata (olive) (interestingly, the olive does get more page views, but it's close—nowhere near the large disparity here). Champagne is about the drink, though that's a slightly different case. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, if someone was looking for Kalamata olives how could they possibly arrive at the wrong article? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow. A reader could search "Kalamata" knowing about Kalamata olives but not the city. --BDD (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean how would they search Kalamata knowing about Kalamata olives but not the city and not end up at the olive article? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about on the first try or eventually? Sure, our hypothetical reader could end up on the city article and have to follow the hatnote to the olive. But if the olive were primary, this wouldn't be a satisfactory arrangement. Hatnotes are navigational aids, but they're also inconveniences, however minor. If we can easily direct more readers straight to the article they're looking for without having to go through hatnotes, we should. --BDD (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean first try, why would they choose "Kalamata" over "Kalamata olive" if they are looking for Kalamata olive? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they didn't know that Kalamata referred to anything but an olive. It may sound silly to us, not all readers will know this. More germane to this discussion, there will be readers who know Cheddar is a cheese but not a village. And while I laud the intent of Derek Andrews's "learning opportunity" on the matter, I don't think complicating navigation is the right way to do that. The first paragraph of Cheddar cheese mentions the cheese's origins here anyway. --BDD (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:BDD that's exactly my point, say your reader who doesn't know Kalamata is a place enters Kalamata in either Google or the top right hand search box, they will see:
Kalamata
Kalamata F.C.
Kalamata International Airport
Kalamata olive
.......so why if they think Kalamata is an olive would they then choose "Kalamata" over "Kalamata (olive)". It isn't a challenging learning opportunity or an intelligence test, it's the difference between a human being and being a piece of wood. Why would a reader avoid "Kalamata olive" and select "Kalamata" if he/she is searching for Kalamata olive? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there's one thing I've learned from all the time I spend at RfD, it's that readers can get to articles in many ways. They might type "Kalamata" directly into a URL, or into a plug-in for their web browser that doesn't provide search suggestions (such as the one I use for Chrome). The suggestions in Wikipedia's own search box are certainly helpful, but we do a disservice to our readers by assuming that's the only way they find pages. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that, in Chrome the url space has dual functions as the Explorer search box. If I enter [Wikipedia Kalamata] in the URL bar and press ENTER I get exactly the same result as in Explorer or Firefox, just direct to Google. I still have the choice:
Kalamata
Kalamata F.C.
Kalamata International Airport
Kalamata olive
How can a Chrome User disable this so he/she only sees one choice? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid we're really straying off topic now, but I have a plug-in (extension, technically) in Chrome that appears as a magnifying glass icon to the right of the URL bar. Clicking it brings up several sites to search, such as Google, Amazon, and Wikipedia. I don't know its name offhand and am not using Chrome right now, but I will most often type my search term in there to bring up something on Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to explain this better except to note that it's not using the URL bar. Firefox has a similar search function built in (again, to the right of the URL bar), although this one taps into suggestions similar to the native Wikipedia search bar. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not really off topic, since if some Users have installed plug ins that prevent them seeing the choices Google/Chrome/Explorer/Firefox and WP's own search box provide it's worth knowing about it. But personally I think our titling should work on the basis of readers who haven't disabled their browsers ability to see more than one title. It does explain though your own previous comments in other RMs, so thanks for explaining. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As regards readers who aren't aware that Category:English cheeses are all named after places, yes they will arrive at "X" geographical places not "X cheese" if they deliberately select "X" while ignoring "X cheese" showing in the right hand search box, or if they click "X" while ignoring "X cheese" in Google results. In which case they will benefit from learning basic reading skills that "cheese" indicates an article on a cheese. The fact that the place Cheddar (and the Cheddar Valley) has much lower hits than Cheddar cheese shows that naming the place after the place and the cheese after the cheese is working. Consider the alternative: if Cheddar the place was getting gazillions of hits then we'd know that calling the cheese a "cheese" wasn't working and then we would change it, but it is working, so why hide the cheese?
If we move these we need to hide the word cheese on all the articles in the category to prevent readers seeing the word cheese on all the cheese. The reason a move has never been brought up in 13 years is because calling a cheese a "cheese" works. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This request isn't about renaming Cheddar cheese, nor would I support such a proposal. --BDD (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but a dab is just as pointless. The only way someone looking for Cheddar cheese could arrive at Cheddar (disambiguation) is if they couldn't recognize the word "cheese" in Cheddar cheese in the search results. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fair. Despite my insistence that I'm not arguing for the cheese is primary, I think I've been doing just that, assuming that this move would have "Cheddar" redirecting to the cheese. That's not what's proposed, though. --BDD (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, lets get this right. Cheddar is going to become a disambiguation page? What exactly is this going to achieve? Currently if they end up at the article about the village instead of the cheese, they see a link to Cheddar Cheese, effectively the same result. --Derek Andrews (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'd been waiting for pageview statistics to accrue before proposing this move, but here we go, I guess. At the top of the article, the hatnote links to "Cheddar (cheese)" instead of Cheddar cheese"; basically no other article links to exactly that 'title'. This article on the city has been viewed 4187 times in February, and well over a tenth of the readers have immediately clicked the link to cheddar (cheese) ([1]). Considering most people arrive here by direct links and many of them probably arrived from cheddar cheese in the first place ([http://stats.grok.se/en/201402/cheddar%20cheese by FAR the most important topic named "cheddar" with over 11000 views so far this month), that's a pretty good signal to me that a lot of people are looking for the cheese at "cheddar". I sure did once upon a time. This village is not a very important one (see the move request at Plymouth I opposed; Plymouth's not going anywhere because it's a major British city. Cheddar is a town where a type of cheese was developed) as far as settlements go. I would also like to note that "X was named after Y" is not and has never been a naming criteria at Wikipedia. As per clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I support moving Cheddar to Cheddar, Somerset. I oppose moving the disambiguation page, however; cheddar cheese is the primary topic and all other uses can be dealt with via a hatnote (with, of course, the village prominently and directly linked to in the hatnote). Red Slash 01:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your argument about the hatnote. Surely this is showing that firstly the hatnote is wrong and should be pointing directly to Cheddar cheese, and secondly that Cheddar cheese is a thing defined by two words and not one. --Derek Andrews (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What next? Brie cheese? "Cheddar cheese" is just as redundant as "brie cheese". --B2C 17:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a comment that can be empirically tested, is "cheese" redundant?
added for clarity Cheddar +meal or food or recipe or eat = 454,000 results total pool
Cheddar +meal or food or recipe or eat -cheese 36,800 results
Cheddar +meal or food or recipe or eat +cheese 323,000 results
Only 11.39% of the sample of books using Cheddar with any 1 of "meal"/"food"/"recipe"/"eat" considered "cheese" redundant. While 88.61% of the same base sample of books decided to also use the word "cheese". If "cheese" is redundant, why do 88.61% of the sample say both "Cheddar" and "cheese". of those 253,000 use the two words together "Cheddar cheese" - which is 78.32%. 78.32% is pretty high for something which is "redundant". In ictu oculi (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think your search string is wrong. Try this result. Basically, you should only exclude those that mention "cheddar cheese" as a phrase instead of "cheese". With the modified search string, we get 152,000 results related to cheddar cheese but doesn't mention "cheddar cheese" or 47%. Definitely not insignificant. —seav (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've spelled out the full formula and added in the pool 454,000 (which doesn't total of course). Your search on "cheddar cheese" is the inverse of the search I did. But still produces the same result. 253,000 use the two words together "Cheddar cheese" - 152 don't. The majority of sources use "cheddar cheese" and the large majority still mention cheese. The purpose of the test was to show that Born2cycle's statement that "cheese" is "redundant" is not true, which you have by posting this search confirmed. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, I did not make the "statement that 'cheese' is 'redundant'", so any effort to prove that statement false is a waste-of-time strawman argument.

Secondly, what I did say is that "cheddar cheese" is just as redundant as "brie cheese".

  • cheddar meal OR food OR recipe OR eat +"cheddar cheese" About 252,000 results (0.19 seconds) [2]
  • cheddar meal OR food OR recipe OR eat +"cheddar" -"cheddar cheese" About 152,000 results (0.74 seconds) [3]
  • brie meal OR food OR recipe OR eat +"brie cheese" About 5,460 results (0.45 seconds) [4]
  • brie meal OR food OR recipe OR eat +"brie" -"brie cheese" About 74,300 results (0.72 seconds) [5]
Okay, so I exaggerated. "Cheddar cheese" is not just as redundant as "brie cheese" (brie alone is used 13 times as often as "brie cheese), but enough use just "cheddar" (alone) to demonstrate many recognize "cheddar cheese" to be redundant. People use "cheddar" (alone) about 60% of the time that "cheddar cheese" is used. --B2C 23:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that the cheese (or even Cheddar Gorge) is what more people would expect to find when looking for "cheddar." Thus, there is no primary topic and disambiguation is needed. Hot Stop 01:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: I would like to add that I would fully support either redirecting cheddar to cheddar cheese, or move the cheese's article to the undisambiguated cheddar article. Hot Stop 15:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Seav, how exactly? See User:Derek Andrews' question above. How is 1 extra click via a dab list better than 1 extra click through a hat note. All this RM is proposing is a reroute of the extra click to take a click detour (click bypass) avoiding the place that makes the cheese. Why is a detour via the dab better than a detour via the place? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's better because it follows the WP:AT policy and the WP:DAB guidelines better. I think your point regarding detours is a red herring because you are assuming that users get to arrive at articles in a particular manner. I don't see anything in Wikipedia's guidelines and policies that says routing via hatnotes is better than DAB pages other than one recommendation mentioned in WP:TWODABS, which does not apply in this case. —seav (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that that's the problem, it doesn't follow WP:AT policy better. WP:CRITERIA has 5 parts: Recognizability, Naturalness, Conciseness, Consistency. This move fails on 4 out of 5 reducing 1 Recognizability, 2 Naturalness, 3 Precision, 5 Consistency at the expense of only Criteria No. 4 Conciseness.
We've already tested these criteria for the point of focus - what is the cheese known as - and got a of those 253,000 use the two words together "Cheddar cheese" - which is 78.32% support for Naturalness for the current status of "Cheddar cheese".
That only leaves application of WP:AT to the place, and yes there is some increase in 3 Precision for Cheddar → Cheddar, Somerset, and arguably 1 Recognizability for the small number of people looking for the place but need to see "Somerset" added. (wouldn't have helped me as I thought Cheddar was Wiltshire) In ictu oculi (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed move are 2 things: First is "Cheddar" → "Cheddar, Somerset". This first move follows WP:DAB (specifically, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) better since the evidence shared above points towards the village not deserving the primary topic status among all things named "Cheddar".
Second is "Cheddar (disambiguation)" → "Cheddar". If there is consensus that the village title move is warranted, then this second move is the most obvious result. (There may be the case that the cheese deserves the primary topic status and so the second move could instead be "Cheddar cheese" → "Cheddar" [or alternately, "Cheddar" redirects to "Cheddar cheese"], but it's still debatable that the cheese is indeed deserving of the primary topic status.) —seav (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I need to inject us with a large dose of some common sense! - if someone were to look up cheddar cheese, they would blatantly search for Cheddar cheese and not the town of Cheddar. For historical references, cheddar cheese takes its name from this town and even to this day they are left to mature in the Cheddar Gorge. Renaming Cheddar cheese just to Cheddar wouldn't sound right - the town is considerably older and more historic than the cheese and the cheese takes its name from this town! The same thing can be said about Sandwich, Kent where again the town is more historic than the actual sandwich (the name of the town gave its name to the sandwich). This article is much broader than the cheese itself and has its own gorge, railway line and valley. Renaming this article in respect for the cheese just wouldn't make any sense. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But Sandwich is about the food, not the town. Are you saying we should rename those articles? --BDD (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I was searching for the cheese, I would search with cheddar, not cheddar cheese. --B2C 23:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say, "Renaming this article in respect for the cheese..."? Respect? Respect has not been mentioned by anyone supporting this proposal. Respect has nothing to do with it, nor should it. As far as I can tell, "respect" is not one of the criteria we use to decide how to title articles.

Is "respect" for the city why you oppose the move? --B2C 04:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say it like that. I think I said 'respect' as a figure of speech. I also would like to add that I don't see the point even if this article does get moved as Cheddar would only get linked to a disambiguation page - it defeats the object of the whole discussion as Cheddar cheese would not be moved or referred to just Cheddar. If we move this page to a disambiguation then Sandwich should also logically be moved to a disambiguation. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 13:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jaguar (talk · contribs), the issue on the table right now is whether this use of Cheddar is primary or not. If it is, then it should remain. If it's not, then the title needs to be disambiguated, and the dab page moved here, at least for the time being.

If the result of this discussion is that this use is not primary, and the dab page is moved to Cheddar, then we can address the question of whether the cheese is primary or not.

The other way to have done it is to propose moving the cheese rather than the dab page to the base name, but then both questions would have to be answered affirmatively for the move to go through. There is no easy way to post both questions in an RM in a way that the right moves are made accordingly. So doing it one question/step at a time makes sense. --B2C 19:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Although I too would prefer the cheese at the base name as primary topic. benmoore 20:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support', though like Ben, I would prefer the undisambiguated name should point to the cheese, with a hatnote going to the disambiguation page. But clearly and regardless, from a worldwide perspective the town is not the primary topic (which explicitly rejects the argue kent that the town had the name first), and the current setup is a case of anglocentrism. oknazevad (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose making "Cheddar" a DAB page, but I support the move if the cheese is moved to "Cheddar". Srnec (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose making cheese the primary topic, weak oppose primary dab. The evidence above and at google books is clear that the collocation of "Cheddar" and "Cheese" is by far the most common way of referring to the cheese when cheese has not already been established as the context of the discussion. Whether the village or the dab should be primary is less clear, but many, perhaps most, people looking for the village will look for it at "Cheddar". It is not at all clear to me that any of the other options are commonly referred to as "Cheddar" alone - certainly only the village and the dab page could reasonably be located at the undisambiguated title and given this I think the village primary. Given that nobody has raised this in thirteen years is a big clue to there not being a significant problem with the current setup. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly if there were to be a primary topic it would likely be the cheese, but I'm not sure there is one. So the proposal works well. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Cheddar" is very easily misrecognized as the cheese, and the town is better recognized as Cheddar, Somerset. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moves as nominated. The town is one of the less significant uses of the name. The two most prominent uses are cheddar cheese and the Cheddar Gorge, and neither is primary over all the other uses. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


GA check

[edit]

I am working my way through the Good articles listed at Places; having a quick look to see if they still meet the Good article criteria. I have landed on this article. After I've had a quick look, I'll leave a note here indicating if I have concerns or not.

In general, I see the process as this: 1) Give the article a quick look to see if there are obvious issues: maintenance tags, unsourced sections, excessive media, etc, resolving any minor issues as I do so; 2) If I have concerns, open a GAR to see how serious those concerns are, resolving them myself if they are not serious; 3) If during the GAR I feel that there is significant work to be done (more than I can or am willing to do myself), I will put the GAR on hold and notify the main contributors.

My aim and intention is to keep the article listed - I would rather the article was improved and kept listed than the article is delisted. Where a delisting seems likely due to the amount or nature of work needed being greater than I am able to do alone, and the main contributors are unavailable or unable for whatever reason to do the work, then appropriate WikiProjects will be notified at least seven days before a delisting would take place. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY OK. No issues. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cheddar, Somerset. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cheddar, Somerset. 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) 19:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheddar, Somerset. 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) 20:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheddar, Somerset. 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) 00:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RM for Cheddar

[edit]

Related to this article and the discussion that took place here in 2014, there is a requested move at Talk:Cheddar‎#Requested move 27 July 2022, proposing to move Cheddar to Cheddar (disambiguation) and make Cheddar redirect to Cheddar cheese. Please participate there if interested. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheddar,_Somerset&oldid=1206636073"