Talk:Ilkley

Ilkley was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 19, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire High‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Ilkley is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Suggestion for slight changes including the addition of an events section

I've recently added a reference to the upcoming Ilkley Beer Festival which is being organised by Ilkley Round Table. I have placed the item after the reference to the Literature Festival which seemed a logical place.

It begs question of whether there ought to be an Events subsection to the Culture and Attractions section. This would probably necessitate some slight reorganisation of certain event information already listed. For example highlighting the Literature Festival which currently is somewhat lost - after all it is the third most important event of it kind in the UK now.

Other major events that spring to mind include; The Ilkley Carnival, The Ilkley Summer Festival, The Complementary Medicine Festival, The Lions Charity Bonfire, Ilkley Playhouse productions, not to mention The Upstagers. This list is not exhaustive and I would invite other contributors to add to it.

Whilst proposing this change might I also suggest reorganisation of page generally. For instance, shouldn’t Education have it own section, rather than be included in the Culture section?

Having had a look at Leeds, it does seem better structured. Pdriver 11:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to all of that. Be bold, but thanks for consulting. --Tagishsimon (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 11:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest having a look at WP:UKCITIES which gives layout for UK settlement articles. Keith D 12:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What the 'ecky thump is a Hydro? Also is it really necessary to point out that Ilkley doesn't lie in the middle of Ilkley Moor? I mean how many places do? Bagpuss

A Hydrotherapy spa is where people go to get various treatments involving cold water to make them better. The Ben Rhydding Hydro Spa was built in Wheatley (Now known as Ben Rhydding, because the hydro spa paid for the station to be built and chose that name or something). The old gate posts can still be seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.215.123 (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents

The Notable residents list seems a little long!! Who are all these minor celebs? Can we remove this section it makes ilkley look like it is a hang-out for z-list celebs!! the previous unsigned comment by IP 82.47.148.3 on 21:25, 23 May 2006

Well I would personally consider that if the person has not got their own page then they have not passed the test of Notability so need not be included. Similarly while Gomez are notable the fact that they recorded an album in Ilkley is not mentioned on their page & therefore is probably not notable. Conversley perhaps Ilkley does attract minor celebrities after a quiet life? If the section gets too big then it could get split into a page of it's own but I don't think its got that far yet.MGSpiller 22:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other individual entries are suspect, such as Richard Whitely, who lived in the next town along, Burley in Wharfedale. Apparantly he has some (unspecified) "connection" with the town. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Where has this list gone? Notable residents include Alan Titchmarsh, Richard Whiteley and Clive Hornby, all of which where either from Ilkley or lived there for a significant amount of time. andylaw31 14:26, 7 February 2009

It got separated out as List of people from Ilkley, and linked from "See also". It would be common practice to have a short "Notable people from Ilkley" section with a list to this fuller list, as that way it shows up in the Table of Contents where readers expect to see it. Also needs Charles Darwin added - temporary resident, very notable this year, and commemorated in a garden on the edge of the Moor. PamD (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Pam says it was moved out, one reason for this is none of the entries in the list were referenced as to their connection to Ilkley. A short prose section giving the most notable people would be in order, if it is referenced correctly. The sub-article could then be referenced using the {{main}} template to make it more visible to users as is done in other articles. Keith D (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When is something in Ilkley and when is it not?

How strict do we want to be? Example: Westville House School has just been added. This school is actually in the Washburn ward of Harrogate Local Authority. Can it really be said, therefore, to be an Ilkley school? Yes, it's near Ilkley, but then so is Addingham, etc. Of course, if we go down the strict route we'll have to remove other stuff (most probably Ghyll Royd school, some Notable residents, etc). What are your thoughts? --Richardob 17:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for a strict definition, since we can afford to have articles on 'dingham, &c. Even Washburn. Wherever that is. Anything, in short, to remove Richard Whitely (ex resident of Burley Woodhead) from the notables list. Methinks the bounds of Ilkley might be Ilkley, Ben Rhydding & Middleton. The only counter-indication is the geographical scope of Ilkley Parish (assuming there is such a thing). To where does that extend? --Tagishsimon (talk)

I noticed you weren't keen on Richard Whitely being listed as an Ilkley notable. But the fact is, he lived in the Parish of Ilkley. He lived in Burley Woodhead, part of the Rombalds ward, the north part of which was in Ilkley Civil Parish before 2006. Last year, Burley and Menston formed their own parishes which meant the boundary of Ilkley CP was reduced to the Ilkley ward. But that's why obituaries like this one say he's from Ilkley. That's why many Burley-in-Wharfedale, Burley Woodhead, and Menston residents give their addresses as, for example, 99 Wonderful Road, Menston, Ilkley. The Ilkley page documents Ilkley as town and as civil parish. I've recently clarified the situation on the page. I'm happy to clarify which part of the parish Mr Whitely was from. Thoughts? --Richardob 00:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Whitely, I'd be more convinced if he appeared on a Burley in Wharfedale page, since I associate Burley Woodhead with BiW more than with Ilkley. And in my universe a Menston person should feature on the Menston page. It's somewhat a principle of subsidiarity ... Ilkley may have been his parish, but there are pages to describe the parish's subdivisions (Ben Rhydding, Menston, Burley) and content, again in my universe, should be pushed down to the lowest level. High Royds (sp) should not appear as an Ilkley hospital. (I guess that's closed too by now?). In sum, I concede the pre-2006 parish argument but counter with the subsidiarity argument. (And for the avoidance of doubt, am I right in thinking that the northern part of the Rombalds Ward which fell inside the Ilkley parish boundary was BiW & Menston ... what comprised the rest of the ward. (I think we might be able to tighten up the paragraph defining the parish - I come away from it with a nagging doubt that I understand it fully.)) Ah. But you've pointed me to maps now. I'll go look. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Thanks for your comments on subsidiarity. Unfortunately I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Relationships between subsidaries are, in my opinion, much more complicated. Let me demonstrate my point with an example. The very existence of the Ben Rhydding page suggests a certain nobility, that BR has a fairy important and distinctive history of its own that ought to be documented on its own terms (on a separate page). I'm all for this. Ben Rhydding can be seen as a village in its own right, emerging from the hamlet of Wheatley, taking its newer name from the hydro, etc, etc. It seems to me that if we exercised the sort of subsidiarity that you are arguing for we would, at once, remove as much to do with BR from the Ilkley page as possible (apart from bare facts, that it falls in the civil parish, etc). But Ilkley and BR, as I'm sure you'll agree, has a much more complicated relationship than that, which is why the Ilkley page documents stuff to do with BR and why I'm also not about to remove the BR schools and churches from the Ilkley page. To not talk of BR on the Ilkley page and to not talk of Ilkley on the BR page would be to lose a sense of perspective or context. It is on a similar basis that Mr Whitely is included. He had a relationship with Ilkley. Yes, there's the technical point that he lived in Ilkley Parish, there's also the point that he was known as an Ilkley man (as many newspaper articles testify). He himself said he lived on Ilkley moor (not the same as Ilkley, but again, a testiment to an Ilkley relationship). From a personal perspective, I lost count of the number of times I saw Whitely in the supermarket doing his weekly shop and the number of times he was involved with Ilkley activities, like the opening of the bandstand (see Ilkley Gazette). Whilst I think we're both now advocating strictness, surely this is another example of where to employ the strictest of subsidiarity would be to lose a sense of perspective. Peace, brother. --Richardob 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you speak sooth. I'm content to leave him in the list. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I forgot to respond to your point on Middleton. What do you mean by the "bounds of Ilkley" including Middleton? What relationship do Ilkley and Middleton have that Ilkley and Addingham don't? Middleton isn't in the parish (until like Burley Woodhead pre-2006. By the way, this page has a small map showing the boundary of Ilkley CP in 2001. And this one shows the boundary of Middleton CP. I've only just learnt that it's got one!). What I will say is this: Middleton is an absolutely tiny hamlet. 99% of Westville House pupils will probably come from Ilkley, Addingham, Burley, etc, so you could still list WH on the basis of this relationship. I still think the strict approach is tidier. I found it very interesting that you added Ghyll Royd (in Burley) after your comments on Mr Whitely. :-) --Richardob 00:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, totally guilty as charged on the Ghyll Royd issue. And I accept that Middleton is not in the parish, but it feels like part of Ilkley, non? (Actually, non. I'm probably mistaking Curly Hill for Middleton, having looked at the CP maps). The parish boundary was all but invisible to me when I scribbled my last note. That said, I have nothing particular I want to say about Middleton in the Ilkley article, so I'm happy to withdraw that from my examples of "in the bounds of Ilkley". I'd be more tempted to relax the rules for schools, since they're more likely (in my imagination) to be used by people who want to know what schools service the town, rather than which are strictly in the town; so would put a qualifier of BW or Middleton. (That said, I have no ready explanation for stopping at those two schools and not adding St. Mary's Menston or Bradford Grammar.) But I'm neither fussed nor very convinced by my own argument ... hapy to go strict with schools. --Tagishsimon (talk)

The Swastika Stone, a rock carving believed to be 3-4,000 years old

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=active&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=wWN&q=swastika+stone+ilkley+iron+age&btnG=Search&meta= suggests that it may be iron age.

http://www.stone-circles.org.uk/stone/swastikastone.htm isn't sure. We could do with an archaeologist giving some probabilities on the age. -- Chris Q 14:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick review

Nice work on the article in recent weeks in getting it ready for a GA review, much appreciated. A few points that could possibly help it along.

A good representative static image in the infobox would be useful. Could try this one.
In the lead the population figure needs clarifying, state that it is the 2001 census figure.
Distances & heights in the Geography section could do with converting with {{Convert}} template.
The Geography & Governance sections needs some references.

Keith D (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Importantly, there's at least one [citation needed] tag that needs resolving, and some stubby sections such as economy, demography, and transport need expanding. There is a lot more that could be added to those sections (take a look at some of WP:UKGEO's Good and Featured Articles for ideas). Nev1 (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of lists in the Schools and Places of worship sections may also cause problems with reviewers.--Harkey (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List has now been removed for Places of worship and converted to prose. --Richardob (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work so far.WP:UKTOWNS has some more pointers.--Harkey (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication

Thanks to those who have added to the article since I nominated it for GA status. However, I'm concerned that quite a bit of what has been added to the Economy section is duplicating what already exists in the Culture and attractions section (such as the stuff about Bettys and shopping). Whilst the Economy section needs to be expanded, it needs new verifiable material and I am keen to remove the "offending" items asap unless there is reason not to. I hope this won't cause offence. --Richardob (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I was just keen to emphasise that these activities are part of the economy. There are several hotels as well as B&B, holiday cottages, etc which generate income for the town.--Harkey (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can add some statistics on employment rates and industry of employment (see Sale, Greater Manchester#Economy) if it helps. Nev1 (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Please do. I've been wanting something just like that. :-) --Richardob (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's taken a while, but I've finally got round to adding some stats to the economy section. Do they read ok? Nev1 (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, Nev. :-) They're excellent and really do a good job at developing the Economy section. Thanks. --Richardob (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ilkley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

This is quite a reasonable article which should make GA. The main problem is lack of in-line citations in some sections and that {verification needed} flag in the Culture and attractions sections. It's not clear to me why the article was submitted for WP:GAN with a {verification needed} flag. I'm putting the article On Hold, so that these problems can be addressed.

Going through the article section by section, but leaving the WP:lead until last:

History - a good section, but:

~~In the second paragraph, Roman Altars unreferenced.~~ - now referenced
The last three paragraphs are entirely unreferenced. DonePyrotec (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Governance -

The section is entirely unreferenced.

Geography -

The statement in the second paragraph about the four bridges is unreferenced.
The paragraph about railways is unreferenced.
The claims about "Olicanian" in Demographics is unreferenced.

Transport -

This is referenced, but it only mentions trains and buses. There is nothing about roads/motorways, and I seem to remember an airport at Leeds/Bradford, which I assume is nearby (and commutable?)? DonePyrotec (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culture and attractions -

The last paragraph is unreferenced.
Note: I've removed the Swastika Stone para from Culture, since it seemed mainly to be a vehicle for Terry Deary's odd speculation on its meaning, which could be more appropriately discussed on the Swastika Stone page. This gets rid of the verification required tag. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schools -

A rather '"thin" section. There is a cited reference to a school established in 1608, then an uncited list of current schools. I would have expected some intervening information, for instance the list includes a Grammar school, a CofE school and a RC school, there must be some information about them, date of formation, etc?

Breadth of Scope -

Ilkey, from the article, appears to be a 17th century planned town and this is mentioned in History', but not in the WP:lead; and is hardly elaborated in the article. The WP:lead makes much about the "spa town heritage" and and there is a paragraph on this is History. Wells house is mentioned in History and again in Higher Education, but it is not clear if they are the same Wells house, or if the various editors of the two sections know either.

WP:lead -

.....to be continued.Pyrotec (talk)14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main review

The article has been improved in parts, I'm therefore going to concentrate in the main on the parts that need further work. The main problem remains lack of WP:verify. As before I'm leaving the WP:lead until last.

History - a good section, but:

The statement "Tourists flocked here to 'take the waters' and bathe in the cold water spring." was claimed to be taken from ref 9, which was mis-cited, but no page number was given. I'm not convinced, so I moved the citation, as it does provide a reference for earlier statements.
A citation is need for "Wheatley today is called Ben Rhydding after the Hydro, which has since been demolished."

Governance -

Final paragraph is unreferenced.

Geography -

The statement in the second paragraph about the four bridges is unreferenced.
The claims about "Olicanian" in Demographics is unreferenced.

Culture and attractions -

There is no citation for "The town was also a location for the 2003 British comedy film Calendar Girls"; and I'm not convinced from wikipedia that the statement is completely accurate. It was only one of several locations used.

You're right, it was *one* of several. That's why I wrote "The town was also *a* location". In other words, I think the sentence makes this clear already. Of course, a citation is still needed. Thanks for your reviewing. :-) --Richardob (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lead -

The lead is rather short. The lead is intended to do two things: provide an introduction to the article, which is does reasonably well; and to summarise the main points of the article. I would suggest that the lead needs to be expanded to about twice its present size - perhaps by adding a third paragraph which includes a bit more summarised information on Ilkley.

On Hold -

This article has been "On Hold" since 27 June 2009, for improvements to be made. This is normally one week, but my Initial comments were left incomplete so I am extending this hold. I will be reviewing the article early next week and a decision with be made then on whether to pass or fail the article.Pyrotec (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Summary

This article is quite close to GA-status, but very little, if any progress, has been made in fixing the oustanding problems. I'll therefore closing this WP:GAN. The article, can of course be resubmitted to WP:GAN preferably after the problems highlighted above have been addressed. I wish you well in your effects to improve this article.Pyrotec (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of the stone circles

Request, please. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure exactly what you are after here, are you just asking for a photo for yourself or for one to be added to this page? If the latter it may be best to go on the Ilkley Moor page. Nevertheless there are 2 photos that can be used on the Geograph project here. Keith D (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sports section

The sports section was becoming very list-like, with people just adding in any sports teams without references. I've tidied it up abit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilkley&action=historysubmit&diff=354997076&oldid=354838203) but it still needs a bit of work. Jorgesca (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be worth moving the lido part from culture to the sports section and expanding it to mention the other facilities there, then just mention it is a tourist attraction in culture/attractions? Jorgesca (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a debate to be had about whether we're better off having bullet-point lists or prose of the sort you've made a start on. It's not clear to me that either is a better option. But I'm happy that you've made a move to improve the section, and I've noodled around in it just now. I think a concern for me is whether the Nordic Walking School has any place in the list ... I guess that's because it is commercial rather than a club or a public facility, hence for me smelling of spam, but my view may be a little extreme. Meanwhile I've started to make reference to the public facilities. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added an update to sports for Ilkley Town AFC with links to club and the their league system. Hope that’s OK Neil1904 (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Olicana = Ilkley Rugby Football Club?

Is Bradford Olicana rugby club mentioned in the 1900 Home Nations Championship article, the same club as Ilkley Rugby Football Club? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something stopping you reading the article yourself to locate the answer to your question? Richard Harvey (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A slightly odd response as neither the 1900 Home Nations Championship nor Ilkley articles have anything about the history of Ilkley Rugby Football Club. DynamoDegsy (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.ilkleyrfc.co.uk/PDFs/History%20-%20web%20site.pdf the club was sometimes referred to as Ilkley Olicana in the pre-1900 period. There's no mention of their playing in the 1900 Home Nations Championship. So the jury must be out, sadly. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tagishsimon for the link to the The History of Ilkley Rugby Football Union Club PDF. Although there isn't any mention of Bradford Olicana in the PDF, there is mention of Ilkley Olicana and Olicana Rugby Club, with Olicana thought to be the Roman fort Ilkley is built upon, it is likley that Bradford Olicana was an Ilkley rugby club, but whether they are direct descendents of Ilkley Rugby Football Club is still uncertain. Some research into the rugby footballer Arthur Cockerham (possibly born January→March 1876 in Bradford district) may offer more light. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Ilkley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Ilkley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ilkley/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.

References need switching to use one of the {{Cite}} templates
Additional references required as tagged
Requires photographs

Keith D 18:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 is now done.

--Richardob (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 00:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 18:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ilkley. 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) 10:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Ilkley. 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) 17:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ilkley. 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) 00:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ilkley. 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/20070109104655/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/oliver.merrington/lidos/lidos2.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/oliver.merrington/lidos/lidos2.htm

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) 09:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Governance

I made some minor changes to add some headings. Also added a Ward map and link to CBMDC Profile. I was planning to identify a reference for each section and move the previous/historic section to the bottom of Governance. Thoughts? Neil1904 (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]