Talk:Priston

Merger proposal

I propose merging Inglesbatch into this article as the hamlet is unlikely to ever have a significant article on its own, and general practice throughout Somerset has been to include small hamlets with little significant content into the parish within which it is located.— Rod ^talk 18:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: I know that a lot of Somerset articles that I come accross over have been merged into their parish villages, but how come? WP:UKCITIES suggests that small hamlets have some notability for their own article (I have created hundreds of hamlets myself!) and that every settlement no matter great or small should have their own recognition for an article. Jaguar (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that if the hamlet has enough material from reliable sources to support an article which will be more than a stub it could be created, however often unless it has significant history or a particular attraction, it is unlikely to have much as demographic information, historic buildings etc are listed under the parish. Most are currently redirected so that the article could be created in the future, but we could end up with thousands of stubs rather than a smaller number of more substantial articles. To quote WP:UKCITIES:

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.

If you feel this is inappropriate its probably best to bring it up on the Somerset wikiproject talk page or even the much wider talk page for WikiProject UK geography, where a recent discussion may be significant.— Rod ^talk 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I would support merging this article because "Writing about the smallest of settlements in the UK can be difficult due to the lack of source material", and the Inglesbatch article demonstrates this well, given that it is only one sentence. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I support Rod's proposal and the precedent has been established in a number of Somerset articles which have been merged in the past. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 15:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have expanded Inglesbatch to back up its deletion. Jaguar (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Inglesbatch is actually in the parish of Englishcombe therefore I will remove the merge banner from the Priston article. The article has been expanded so might survive an AfD therefore I will remove the banner from Inglesbatch as well, and wait to see if the article develops further.— Rod ^talk 17:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have expanded it a little, although I wouldn't be adverse to it becoming a section of the Englishcombe article. I can see the benefit of not having lots of stubs, but on the other hand there are thousands of articles on far less notable places such as Northwest Hancock, Maine, which has a population of 4.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal (Wilmington)

I prose the merger of Wilmington, Somerset into this article as Wilmington is a small hamlet which is unlikely ever to be more than a stub. Population data is by civil parish (the whole parish only has 332 people), and I am unable to find significant history or other indicators of notability for the hamlet.— Rod ^talk 21:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge This may be odd for me saying this but I do agree. A small hamlet might stay a stub forever but with no landmarks or notability a small settlement may not be worth mentioning in the wealth and might of Somerset. Jaguar (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

_{*Note I moved this discussion from Talk:Englishcombe as Wilmington was erroneously identified as being in Englishcombe parish, so I'm assuming that a merge to Priston was what was intended by those commenting above.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)}

_{:*Thank you for moving it. I did get the parish wrong.— Rod ^talk 15:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)}

• Comment I could conceive of a separate article existing - it appears at one time it did have its own manor (here owned by the John Champney of the Orchardleigh Estate), it is mentioned in Domesday, and I have my suspicions that the first Abbot of Vale Royal Abbey was from Wilmington (also a John Champney (here called Chaumpeneys, referred to here))(Another "Johanne chaneys" from "Wyllemyndon" (which appears to be an old rendering of Wilmington per [1]) is listed here as gifting to St Augustine's Abbey). I'm not sure this is enough to justify a separate article (maybe a seperate section of Priston), but I'll try and add something in if I can verify it.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Images of England does record steps and gateposts of the former Wilington Farmhouse still exist although the building has been demolished. I still beliieve it would be best as a sub section of the Priston article.— Rod ^talk 16:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Don't merge Following comments from others at the Duncorn Hill deletion review (which I instigated primarily to clarify criteria for geographic articles) I am now not convinced that a strategy of merging settlements to their parish articles is necessary. Minor villages and hamlets might be included in parish articles in the first instance, but if a separate article already exists I don't see there is much to be gained by a merge. Consistency across Somerset/UK/Wikipedia geographic articles appears a lofty goal that is unlikely to be achieved. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• OK in the light of these comments I have removed the merge proposal - it would still be good to expand Wilmington, Somerset.— Rod ^talk 19:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Priston. 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/20080130105206/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19950493_en_1.htm to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19950493_en_1.htm

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) 19:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Priston. 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/20110115233923/http://bathnes.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Environment%20and%20Planning/World%20Heritage%20Site%20Setting%20Study%20rev4%20current%2022-10-09%20WEB%20VERSION%20PART%205.pdf to http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Environment%20and%20Planning/World%20Heritage%20Site%20Setting%20Study%20rev4%20current%2022-10-09%20WEB%20VERSION%20PART%205.pdf

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) 14:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)