Jump to content

Talk:Winterbourne, Gloucestershire

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

comment

[edit]

I always thought that the "winter-bourne" was the Bradley brook rather than the frome as that actually does dry up to mud in the summer sometimes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.34.223.1 (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Merge David Edgar (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both this article and Civil Parish of Winterbourne essentially discuss the same place, and are largely a duplication of information. The only additional information contained on the "Civil Parish" page is the name of the three additional settlements within the parish, and the proximity to two motorways. The Gallery contains three images (one not very good) that are not contained on the village page and a poorer, alternate image to one already on the village article. The section on "Notable residents" has been directly copied from one page to the other.

See the essay at Wikipedia:Integrate. This example is potentially a violation of Wikipedia:Content forking (if there was anything significant to write about the village that could not be accommodated on the parish page it would not be, but there isn't).

For an article that has achieved Wikipedia:Good article status and includes a village within a parish (or, in this case community) see Aberdaron. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are many thousands of civil parishes in England, yet Civil Parish of Winterbourne seems to be the sole article with such a name. This must tell us something: it could be
  1. so we need articles on all the others too ... or it could be
  2. wherever the parish is named after one main village (as it usually is) these articles would largely duplicate the village article. Parish councils and parish boundaries are not very notable
I take the second of these views, and I think merger is a good idea. We would just need to make sure that Winterbourne, Gloucestershire includes overall information about the parish, thus: Winterbourne gives its name to a civil parish, which also includes the villages of Winterbourne Down, Hambrook and Frenchay. Andrew Dalby 11:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Civil parish..." article doesn't add much, and is almost an orphan (it's only linked from the pages for the villages within it. I would suggest that a section in the village article is all that's needed about the CP, and that only a line or 2. Maybe the lead should read "...large village and civil parish..."

  • Merge into Winterbourne, Gloucestershire as per above. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Winterbourne, Gloucestershire, based on the observations of Andrew Dalby - this is the only civil parish in England (as far as I can see) which has an article to itself where there's a settlement with the same name. There are a couple in NI (e.g. Desertmartin (parish)), but it looks like all county WikiProjects under WP:England follow the format of putting both the civil parish and the settlement in the same article, so we should follow WP:NCCS. Zangar (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Only one article is needed, and the parish can be mentioned in the articles about the villages without making the pages too long. If the village and parish articles were expanded separately, it's likely that most of the information would be duplicated. One problem is the infobox - population requires a number, and it's ambiguous whether this should be for the parish, or for the village if separate figures are available. As it looks like this will be merged, I have made a list of articles about parishes in England at User:Peter E. James/parish. The articles in the first section are similar to this one (but all are stubs) and can probably be merged and redirected. Some articles in the second section may be suitable for merging, depending on length of the main articles about the places. Peter E. James (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.