Talk:Edward Stobart

Untitled

This is ridiculous - this and Eddie Stobart are independently written articles about the same person. But neither article knew anything of the other's existence until just now.

Eddie Stobart is the longer article, but it's mistitled - both are about Edward Stobart Jr, but from what I can make out it was Edward Sr who was known as Eddie.

The best course of action seems to me to be to merge that article into this one. But since that one's longer, it's more of a case of merging this into that, and then moving this across, depending on what we want to do with the page histories.

Some formatting fixes are needed, but I'm holding back pending sorting out of the duplicate articles. — Smjg (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is the correct title, so eventually the combined content should be merged under this title. There is the possibility of a separate article for Eddie Stobart (senior) since there is a published biography. Dbfirs 15:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

--- It might be worth updating this in the light of http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-13560566 - not sure 50 million > is accurate

Serious problems with article due to introduction of hoax elements

Houston, we have a problem. When the article Eddie Stobart was merged into this article, it caused to be introduced into this article a huge chunk of madeup information added by User:00tu, a sock of User:Jake Picasso, who does that sort of thing a lot. Essentially everything in this edit to the Eddie Stobart article here is made up; the references are bogus. Just looking at this article, refs numbers 6 to 10 are fake (as of this version current at time of writing); these are essentially all the references covering The Stobart Group section and the death of Eddie Stobart. Presumably sources can easily be found for the date of his death, but the The Stobart Group section is fatally flawed at present. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a strange mixture of fact and fiction. Some of the fiction (such as Nora's job) seems to have been removed, but some might remain. I don't have the documents readily available to check the claims, but I'm sure we have some Stobart experts who can put the article right. Dbfirs 06:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Removed broken/fake links and replaced with genuine, probably still needs someone with a greater knowledge of Stobart than I to pass an eye over the article though. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 08:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Just a thought, but the details of the various movements of senior staff should be in the Stobart Group article, rather than here. ( A definite "making life easier manouvure", but it would any problems here.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edward Stobart. 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/20110402084603/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23937341-haulage-supremo-edward-stobart-dies.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23937341-haulage-supremo-edward-stobart-dies.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110409134648/http://www.stobartgroup.co.uk/NewsCentre/NewsArticle/Edward-Stobart-Funeral-Arrangements/ to http://www.stobartgroup.co.uk/NewsCentre/NewsArticle/Edward-Stobart-Funeral-Arrangements/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)