Talk:Skegness

Removal of comparative statistics in the demography section

Back in January, DragonofBatley decided to remove some of the comparative statistics from the demography section, specifically those comparing Skegness's ethnic makeup with the ethnic makeup of England as a whole. They justified the rationale with an edit summary asserting that the article "Already states population and doesn't need to be compared to England's whole makeup as no other article has these figures". I missed this edit at the time -- I think this occurred when the article was on the main page and was getting the usual vandalism and minor tweaks by passers by. Yesterday, I realised it had been removed and reinserted the missing text; I explained my rationale: restoring deleted text - must have been removed some time ago; it makes sense to compare a place with the national picture, for those not familiar with the demography of the UK). DragonofBatley then removed it again with the edit summary: no it doesn't because if that was the case each town and city article would be including this. To avoid the potential for edit warring, I thought I would seek discussion here. I believe that the comparative statistics should be restored to the article for several reasons:

• It makes a great deal of sense to compare the demography of a place with the national or regional demographics, otherwise unfamiliar readers will not have any context against which to understand it.
• Contrary to DragonofBatley's claims, comparative statistics are widely used in high-quality UK articles about settlements, such as Ashton-under-Lyne, Bath, Somerset, Navenby, Sale, Greater Manchester and Sheerness. Check out the demography sections and you will see in-line or tabular comparisons between the settlements' populations and the regional/national picture. This is hardly surprising, because our guidelines on writing about UK settlements (at WP:UKTOWNS#Demography) advocate using comparative statistics.
• This article has been through the Featured Article process, which means it has been subject to thorough review by multiple experienced content editors who have approved it as meeting a strict set of content criteria and essentially being one of Wikipedia's best articles. The other examples I just gave are also Featured Articles. That does not mean that we can't have a discussion about significant changes, but it does mean that a consensus has been built to include this material and so the onus is on the person proposing the change to overturn that consensus here or more generally at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography.

So, DragonofBatley and any other editors are welcome to chime in, but I believe I have put forward my case for keeping the content. I am about to restore the deleted passages (for which consensus exists) pending the outcome of this discussion and any change to that consensus. Dragon: please discuss this here rather than reverting again. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC).

I think what needs discussing is what exactly is encyclopaedic about comparing a small town like Skegness and towns like the aforementioned with England? What exa DragonofBatley (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is the reason for these ethnicity comparisons with England? What is it about Englands ethnicity national statistics picture we are trying to paint that isn't then done on all American France Italy Wales Ireland etc cities and towns for ethnicity? I am not against keeping demographic data but then going into a nationwide comparing it to other parts of England clogs up the page with irrelevant information. There's plenty in Manchester Cardiff Leeds Bradford Preston Blackburn etc explaining how their Asian African etc community came about and their religion etc. Point is Skegness is a seaside town not a major town or city. That type of thing would be best placed in the cities and towns with major ethnicity comparisons then Skegness with less then 1%. Your towns and cities mentioned are urban and border major cities and towns. Skegness doesn't it's a very small area miles from any major centres and so that part is irrelevant. It's not a case of WP:TopicBan OR WP:Owning. It's a case of removing irrelevant information which doesn't enhance it but clogs it up and uses a very unhelpful demographic information. Do it for all major cities and towns even conurbations but for small non major places it's best left out of it. Unless a source or the council uses them to enhance living there through demographic comparing DragonofBatley (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale:, @Eopsid:, @PamD:, @Blue Mean Square: DragonofBatley (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I've already explained the reason for the ethnicity comparisons; like any demographic comparison, it allows a reader to get a sense of how far the town's population reflects the country's demographic. I would advocate doing this for every settlement. I am struggling to see any reason why this is a problem – if you're going to tell readers that a place has X% of people with Y characteristics, then many are naturally going to ask how this compares with the rest of the country, otherwise the numbers are quite meaningless. Why is it that you feel so strongly about doing this for ethnicity and not for any of the other statistical measure used (e.g. religion, health, age, economic activity, employment, industry worked in, housing type)?

Also, you've obviously not checked the articles I listed above: Navenby is a small village of c. 700 people and Sheerness is a town in Kent smaller than Skegness and also by the sea. Both make use of statistical comparisons, not just for ethnicity, but many other demographic facts.

Anyway, if you feel that this is more of a site-wide issue, then discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities; those are useful places to start a discussion about wider issues, rather than this talk page. But you'll need to form a consensus to start removing comparative statistics from articles like this. —Noswall59 (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC).

These statistics are provided by the census though I'm not sure how much info should be added per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Noswall, the statistics should be in the article, it might be unhelpful to DragonofBatley but extremely helpful to others. Size of the settlement is irrelevant. Esemgee (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Esemgee: be careful with assumptions as that can mean what you think is actually not true. Which in this case is not. And as per Crouch Swales mention this would likely fall under WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. I don't have issues with census data but it should be kept simplified then over the top paragraphs. So maybe be more on the fence then assuming perhaps something not quite true? Yeah? DragonofBatley (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I am assuming nothing, I am stating a fact. It is you who need to take advice from editors like Noswall59 who have experience of writing good articles not me who needs to be "more on the fence". I think I have corrected your edits before now. Esemgee (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

[] started a consensus for two articles included is this so head there DragonofBatley (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

DragonofBatley, to clarify, you've started a discussion there. In broad terms, reaching a consensus means establishing broad agreement. On Wikipedia, we have policies on this (WP:Consensus) and it's essential to the way we edit here; it means reaching a policy-based settlement over an issue with the editing community. You really need to familiarise yourself with those policies. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC).

And the link above should be to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Doncaster_and_Skegness_issues, not to the mobile version. PamD

In general, if something is a Featured Article (and promoted less than a year ago, too) it's best to leave well alone rather than diving in and making changes according to ones personal preferences. Checking confirms that the comparison with England figures was there at the time it became featured, and other editors have worked on the article since then without changing that section. There's plenty elsewhere in the encyclopedia which needs to be changed, updated, better sourced, etc: please concentrate on that rather than changing an article which has already undergone a thorough level of scrutiny by experienced and picky editors. But if you're really unhappy with an aspect of a featured article, discuss it in the talk page. PamD 16:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

There are many places with statistics on age, ethnicity and other sociodemographics. These have to be compared to the English or UK average for them to be meaningful, as to whether the sociodemographics deviate for the country as a whole. The one thing I would suggest is that this data is placed in a table. It is normal to index such statistics, where 100 = national average. Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Skeggy

Can the town's nickname be added to the article? John a s (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)