User talk:Updw1234

Hi @Updw1234,

Great work on the article! I'm glad to see you have added a wealth of new information to the article, especially details from Edson's book on Old Market. I haven't read your additions in full yet, but would it perhaps make sense to merge the "Current boundaries of St Jude's" with the "Geography" section? The scope of both seems rather similar, and much of the information looks fairly similar too. I think the "Historic boundaries" and "Impact of inner city regeneration on boundaries" could then be subsections of this.

Also I assume the article is still a work in progress since you are working in a piecemeal fashion, but you may want to be wary of Wikipedia's original research policies (see WP:OR) in case you haven't seen them. This is for those small paragraphs that make claims but are uncited. It should be fine to use [citation needed] for these in case you haven't managed to find a source yet.

Best regards and many thanks for your efforts, Plasmium (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!

Great tip on using citation needed if I've not got back to my source material yet on particular points. Lots of tabs and markers in books! Hopefully I won't need to that much. (If it looks like I've just not always feel free to add citation needed if you want to. But not wanting to create work for you so I'll stay on top of this)

Yes good point on the geography and boundary sections. I'll do a rejig of those.

Thanks again for taking the time to reach out on this, much appreciated Updw1234 (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

PS - I was just brushing up on my WP:OR and I was wondering about my final paragraph in 'current boundaries'. Do you think stating the boundaries based on the various sources strays into original research? Only if you get chance to have a look. Updw1234 (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I think citing various articles as examples of what streets are considered by local media to be St Jude's is completely fine. Actually, it saves a lot of the rest of the article from looking like original research when sources that do not name St Jude's are being used. I think the bigger risk may be inferring the boundaries from these various sources; this would be WP:SYNTH. I also think statements like this one may be an issue:

"To the east in the same year creation of Easton Way, a dual carriageway breaking Stapleton Road into two discrete areas, acting as a hard boundary separating St Jude's from the rest of Easton. To the north where the River Frome had served as a partial boundary the building of M32 and Newfoundland Way (A4032) created a new, hard north western boundary"

I don't disagree with you on this factually, but if you are discussing "hard boundaries" in the prose, it would presumably need to carry a strong citation along with it. I'm not sure how you used KYP for this, but if it was a community or boundary layer, then citing that should be okay. If it was just inference from maps, then probably less so, because another editor could come to a different conclusion and write something different.

Perhaps reducing how definitive some of the text sounds, i.e. providing a more general rather than a strict overview of boundaries, might avoid WP:OR issues. It may also be advantageous to describe the historical parish boundaries in more detail, since these were much more strictly defined. From there, once you talk about the other parishes that were merged into St Jude's, a description of modern boundaries more accurate to published material should emerge. Just avoid making conclusions in the text, and allow the reader to come to any themselves from the text and sources.

There are also some other sentences such as:

"The only known street signage or infrastructure to reference St Jude's is the former St Jude's Community Room at Tyndall House, Great George Street"

Which, now that I think of it, is actually most likely factually correct and a pretty cool piece of information. Sadly, without a citation to reliable, published work stating something similar, this would likely raise the same WP:OR concerns from other editors. This type of text would be well suited to an essay or dissertation, but Wikipedia policy tends to stick to what would be expected of an encyclopedia (though you may notice many other have similar issues, so I personally would not treat these policies as absolute gospel). It might be better to upload your own photo of that sign to Wikimedia Commons and give it a caption with something like "one of the few signs referencing St Jude's by name," as this would achieve a similar result while also illustrating the article.

I hope this helps. The article is already looking in a much better state than before with your additions. Plasmium (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Those are such great tips and sound very workable. It definitely feels like my brain hadn't cottoned on to some of the nuances of staying on the right side of the policies.

Yes it feels like the article is shaping up nicely between us. I'm saving having a proper read of the history section you've been writing but I've been catching some nice nuggets as I've been scrolling past. Looking forward to the rest.

I appreciate you taking the time to give me these pointers. I now remember coming across these same issues when I first tried Wiki years ago but must have given up for not quite getting my head around WPOR and SYNTH. Thank you for helping me in! Updw1234 (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries, I'm glad another article on a place in Bristol is no longer just a short article thanks to your help. If you don't mind, I might make some minor adjustments to your text, mostly formatting issues with citations and adding some images to help break up the text a bit, though I also want to merge the text in "St Jude's boundaries" with "Current boundaries of St Jude's" as I find they somewhat repeat each other. Let me know if that's okay with you.

Also, whereabouts did you find a copy of "Outside the Gate, Memories of St Jude's"? I placed this in the further reading section as I knew Living Easton had a copy in its library back when that group existed, but I've been unable to find any reference of it elsewhere and don't know what happened to their stock. Considering it's one of the few publications dedicated to the area, I've wanted to read it for a while.

Best regards, Plasmium (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes that all sounds very sensible to me, feel free. I'll also add in some images at some point but I'll likely focus on text for a while first.

I got OTGMST part 2 from ebay I think, or one of the second hand online book shops. I've not been able to find part 1. It's an interesting booklet although first hand accounts only with no discussion. But it's worth a read.

I noticed part 2 (and maybe part 1) were available to view/copy at the archives near Hotwells but I wasn't able to get out there.

My copy is quite tatty but you're most welcome to borrow it if that ends up easier. Updw1234 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2025 (UTC)