Jump to content

Talk:Woolbeding

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this a parish or village article

[edit]

This article was originally Woolbeding with Redford and recently moved to Woolbeding with a comment Article is about the village, not civil parish.

Guidelines at WP:UKTOWNS state

Writing about the smallest of settlements in the UK can be difficult due to the lack of source material, especially when compared with the country's major metropolises. Some of the UK's smallest settlements may form part of a civil parish or council ward. Country hamlets and villages may mention significant places that might not be considered part of the village, but which lie within the parish or ward. Hamlets that are within another parish or council ward could have their own articles, but if there is no more than a couple of paragraphs that could be said about the hamlet it may be best practice to merge the articles.

Its a little bit vague, but my interpretation is that best practice is to have a civil parish article, which acts as a catch-all for all the villages, hamlets and landmarks within the area.

This article contains area and population statistics which relate to the parish. The National Trust estate and SSSI mentioned are not part of the village, but are within the parish. My current wikiwork would eventually have added the villages of Redford and Woolbeding Common to the article.

I therefore propose we revert to Woolbeding with Redford. MortimerCat (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted back to the article state before User:Skinsmoke indiscriminately hijacked many village articles to write about the civil parish instead. Until the above user came along and started randomly moving articles, the unwritten rule has always been that all named settlements have their own article, and this is still the case across 99% of the UK's village articles. If you feel an article regarding the civil parish of "Woolbeding with Redford", then I suggest creating a separate article for that topic, rather than hijacking existing articles. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The written rule, as described in my initial statement, is for the article to relate to a parish. However, remember that this discussion is about the Woolbeding article, not about skinsmokes right or wrongs. This article from the very first version has always related to the parish. If the article was just about Woolbeding village then half the article would disappear. The NT property and SSSI are nearer Redford, the statistics are parish related.
There has recently been a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Merging minor settlements. Taking on board the comments there, this Woolbeding stub would get a merge tag, and eventually merge into my new parish article. My argument is that this article was not hijacked, it was given a correct title. MortimerCat (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revison as of 5 July 2008 - "Woolbeding is a village and civil parish in the District of Chichester in West Sussex, England located 2 kilometres (1.4 miles) north west of Midhurst north of the A272 road and the River Rother." In the time since the article was created, the civil parish has been renamed/merged with another, so it is no longer relevant to call Woolbeding a civil parish, hence it hasn't been included in my revert. A good measure of community consensus towards individual village articles can be found at various AfD debates, one of the more recent debates is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astley Cross. It should also be noted what is said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Places - "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size, so long as their existence can be verified through a reliable source". I notice you refer to a "written rule", a WikiProject page is in no way a rule, and WikiProjects don't own articles, in any case, community consensus, as outlined above would overrule this.
If there is content in this article, that would be more suited to Redford, West Sussex, then I suggest you move the appropriate text there, creating the article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a statement of fact, the parish was officially renamed to Woolbeding with Redford on 1 May 2007, a couple of months before the article was created, but that is irrelevant to my points.
My proposal is reverting back to a redirect for Woolbeding, not an AfD. This is in line with guidelines developed from extensive discussion and consensus. My point still is that a parish article is the one to handle content that may be near a village, but not associated with that village. The NT property for example is not notable enough for its own article, and it is not part of either Woolbeding village or Redford village. The proposal is the same as the consensus at Talk:Astley Cross which would have been redirected had it not been for a quirk of its geography.
In summary, this article was always being developed as a parish article. Skinsmoke renamed it to the official parish title. After the recent edits it is now factually incorrect, and I think it should be restored to Woolbeding with Redford. MortimerCat (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"My point still is that a parish article is the one to handle content that may be near a village, but not associated with that village." Then move it to a Woolbeding with Redford article, leaving this one alone. There is nothing to suggest this has always been developed as a parish article, other than a passing mention of the parish name. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I just add that apart from Woolbeding House and the ancient church there is very little of the "village", i.e. a hamlet with a church. It seems perfectly reasonable to make it a parish article. --Charles (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Woolbeding. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woolbeding&oldid=1202637101"