Talk:Cullompton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCullompton has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 26, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Expansion[edit]

I have been slowly adding to this article but if anyone else wants to contribute that would great. It has been suggested that we should follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements. In particular contributions which have sources other than the Book of Cullompton and the Second Book of Cullompton are welcome. At present these are my main references as they were all I could find last week in Cully library.--NHSavage (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The History sections has too many sub-sections. It could probably be just one section with each "sub-section" as seperate paragraphs. bsrboy (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, yes it has too many subsections - however this gives a structure for adding future material. The section on the Roman forts which I have just added is big enough for its own subsection as is Etymology. If these have their own subsection it become very hard not to have the rest in their own subsections.--NHSavage (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really about the size of content that you're going to be inserting. It's the relevance. Would it really help people? Often it needs to be more than two (decent sized paragraphs long. I prefer to do: Ealy History, Industrial Revolution, 20th Century. Etymology also merits its own sub-section. The external links that are here, as well, need to be removed or used as references, using the cite web template. bsrboy (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know the external links need removing - if you look I have only added references with the cite template. I can't do everything at once. Your schema contradicts what is recomended at Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements - "Avoid using headings that arrange the history of a settlement according to century or decade".--NHSavage (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it means 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th century. The 20th century is often used for articles. Feel free to organise it however you want, but my preference, is to order it chronologicaly. I was just giving some ideas for the article. bsrboy (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Cullompton Manor House to here[edit]

The article at Cullompton Manor House should be merged here. That article is very short and I do not believe that the Manor House on its own is notable enough for its own article any way. Plus its actually a copyvio from here.--NHSavage (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cullompton Manor House should be deleted, because it is copy and pasted. A paragraph or so about it should be added to this article, using http://www.cullompton.org/the-manor-house.html as a reference. bsrboy (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Created redirect from Cullompton Manor House.--NHSavage (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== Deleted links ==

the following links have been removed from the article but may still be useful.

--NHSavage (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All links now used.--NHSavage (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for expansion[edit]

As many sections are now a good size, I have changed the expansion request to only be for the history, economy and transport sections.--NHSavage (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pub URLs[edit]

Two raw URLs have been removed.

these should be used as references for facts in the future

Deleted text from the leat section[edit]

I have removed the text below as a) it has been unreferenced for some time b) I can't see any cracks in the path and there are no warning notices c) it is not really encyclopedic

At the moment,[1] the concrete footpath running alongside the Leat at Lower Mill from the footbridge to the Kissing Gate, has been seriously eroded by the Leat water along its bottom edge (which can only be seen when the water level is low), and has developed some rather serious cracks along its edge as well. Because of this, the footpath is in danger of collapsing into the Leat itself in the near future. Users of this footpath, especially parents with young children or pushchairs, should be wary of using this entrance into the CCA Fields, and would be advised to use the footpath at the end of the "parkland" area. --NHSavage (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ September 2010

Close to GA review?[edit]

I have developed this article a lot since it was given B status and I am considering submitting for GA review soonish. There are a few more changes I know are needed first but I'd like to other people's input on where we are. What I plan to do now is:

  • improve use of books of Cullompton by adding page numbers for all references (this could take a while!)
  • Government section. Find references for first Mayor in 1995 (is the board in the town hall suitable evidence?) and that it was part of Tiverton Sanitary District (or possibly just delete this point)
  • include a couple of additional photos

--NHSavage (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Population statistics[edit]

We have a slightly confusing situation at the moment, with a lack of consistency about whether the population we are talking about is for the parish as a whole or for the town. I am going to be bold and change the statistics to include both values for 2011, with references and change the info box based on the population of the parish as a whole. I am happy to discuss this further though.--NHSavage (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused how City Population get the data for the 2011 town population at 7,439. I understand that the town ward wasn't used in 2011 census, but thought it had simply been split into north and south wards (total pop. 7,643). The extra 200 people are coming from a place called Stonyford (I think, but I don't know the local area). City Population does not include dwellings east of the M5, whereas the ward boundaries extend beyond it. Jolly Ω Janner 22:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Cullompton. 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, 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) 17:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cullompton. 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, 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) 08:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cullompton. 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, 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) 01:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cullompton&oldid=1206841395"