Talk:Norton Radstock

? separate Radstock & Midsomer Norton

It has been suggested to me that this article should be split into 2 seperate ones for Midsomer Norton & Radstock - as they do have seperate identities (even though growing ever closer together) & it is only because of local authority boundaries that they are joined together. Any Thoughts?— Rod ^talk 09:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm the person who suggested this on Rod's talk page. Most places, even quite tiny places, have their own article, and Midsomer Norton and Radstock are separate though adjoining places, and not tiny. Norton Radstock deserves an entry as a local government entity, but the two towns have their own names and should have their own articles. Clandown has a separate article and that's both smaller and, arguably, less a distinct place. Johnlp 21:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is rediculous to combine Norton and Radstock. Writhlington (quite rightly) has its own entry and that is somewhat more 'physically merged' with Radstock than Norton is (for the record I am certainly not advocating merging Writhlington with 'Norton Radstock' :) Bobgateaux (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK 3 comments in favour of splitting & non against in 14 months so I have been bold & split the towns of Radstock & Midsomer Norton out into separate articles. They all still need a bit of tidying up but I hope this is what was intended.— Rod ^talk 20:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I suggest merging the Clandown article into this one as it is unlikely to be large enough by itself.— Rod ^talk 16:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Have wriiten a number of points for consideration by yourself, & thought I'd save them ?! Have I ? John Gibson (ja_gibson@tiscali.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.233.50 (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the points for consideration - could you just put them here? It would be helpful if you could register for an account to make communication easier.— Rod ^talk 12:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It makes more sense to include Clandown as a paragraph or subsection of the civil parish. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now merged Clandown into this article but left a redirect which can always be separated and expanded later.— Rod ^talk 21:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Name

I just reverted a change which involved this article being blanked and redirected to Norton-Radstock. First of all copy/paste is not the way to handle changes to article names, it should be moved using the "move" tab. Secondly, the hyphen is not used by either of the official bodies that govern the town(s). Search for the settlement on http://www.bathnes.gov.uk and you will see that no hyphen is used e.g. this press release. Nor is it used by the town council. Any move of this article to Norton-Radstock should be discussed first and consensus should be reached. --TimTay (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It could be argued that the official name is indeed hyphenated. For example, the statutory instrument which established the four council wards uses a hyphen. However I would argue that WP:COMMONNAME should take precedence, supported by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Widely accepted name, and that the hyphen isn't needed. This article is about the town and parish not exclusively about the parish. The most commonly used form is "Norton Radstock" and that is what should be used for the article name.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Norton Radstock. 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/20101116050739/http://bathnes.gov.uk/LEISUREANDCULTURE/TOURISMANDTRAVEL/TWINNING/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/leisureandculture/tourismandtravel/Twinning/Pages/default.aspx

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) 21:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)