Talk:Bramber

Merge proposal

Guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements state that ideally the civil parish should be the catch-all article, avoiding single line articles on every village and landmark within the parish. Therefore, I suggest that villages within the parish with a one or two sentence article, ie Annington, West Sussex to be merged and redirected to this parish article. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Disagree. That wouldn't make any sense at all. Annington was historically in the ecclesiastical parish of Botolphs, and also the civil parish of Botolphs, before the latter was abolished. Annington is part of Botolphs village. Historically the names Annington and Botolphs have been used interchangeably. To lump Annington in with Bramber simply wouldn't make sense. If any merge proved necessary then Annington should be merged with Botolphs, though my personal opinion is that every community, however small, is worthy of it's own article. After all, there is much that could be done to expand the Annington article. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 16:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the civil parish is the most convenient article for the lowest level of geographic articles. Population and area statistics are all based on the civil parish, governance obviously is based on the Civil parish. Landmarks may not be near a village, but are covered by a parish article. This is my aim, to provide a complete coverage of civil parish articles.

The UK geography guidelines state "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." This is why I am tidying up the one liners that are scattered about - they can always be split out again. I do not know every village in Sussex, which is why I put tags on first.

Having read the above comments, I do agree that merging with Botolphs would be a better option. Also, I have no problem with leaving Annington, West Sussex if there is material to expand it beyond a stub. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Disagree. (with original proposal) I agree that the Annington article might usefully be merged with Botolphs as long as a redirect remains for whichever title is to disappear. Merging Annington with Bramber would be entirely inappropriate in my opinion.--Doug (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think thats a no! I have changed the merge tag to point to Botolphs. The discussion on whether to merge Annington, West Sussex into Botolphs will continue at Talk:Botolphs. MortimerCat (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bramber. 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/20110608075926/http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/communityandliving/census2001/pop_parish_summary.pdf to http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/communityandliving/census2001/pop_parish_summary.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 08:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)