Talk:Burghfield

Merger of Burghfield Hill and Burghfield Bridge into this article

Oppose: User:Verica Atrebatum has added templates to the three affected articles suggesting this merger, but has not given reason for this merger here (the place appointed in the templates for discussion of the merger). Somebody needs to make the case for merger in order for a consensus to be established. I am therefore formally opposing the move, in order to flush out the reasoning; I reserve the right to change my view once I've seen the reasons. -- Chris j wood (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Sorry, forgot about this bit. I have proposed this merger because both Burghfield Hill and Burghfield Bridge are extremely small places, (particularly the former which barely exists as a independent settlement), with little if any history or modern interest which cannot better be covered by relating it to the wider parish of Burghfield. Burghfield Common does not have a separate entry, yet it is a much larger place. The entry for Burghfield already covers information for Burghfield Hill and Burghfield Bridge (as well as Burghfield Common). Verica Atrebatum (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think whether to write a single article at civil parish level, covering all the settlements in the parish, or articles for each subordinate settlement in the parish, is something that needs to be decided on a case by case basis. I would support a move to a single article in this case, but unfortunately your move doesn't quite achieve this (it leaves Pingewood and Sheffield Bottom as stand-alone articles. I'd prefer it if that was also addressed, as otherwise the list of hamlets would a mixture of bolds (reflecting redirs) and links, which is messy and confusing to readers. Hence comment, not support. -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I too would not necessarily support merging all hamlets into a single civil parish article, but in this case I have no objection. Pingewood and, particularly, Sheffield Bottom are not at all noteworthy. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do feel that Burghfield Hill should be merged with Burghfield Common (which is currently redirected to Burghfield), but don't much mind about Burghfield Bridge. So an alternative would be to either merge Burghfield Hill with Burghfield and leave the other hamlets, or move Burghfield Hill to Burghfield Common and transfer corresponding Burghfield Common info to that article from Burghfield, and again leave the others as is. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merged Burghfield Hill after a very long silence. Mighty Antar (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the hamlet of Burghfield Bridge is a much more distant part of this parish, I've left that alone along with Pingewood and Sheffield Bottom and removed the merge tag from Burghfield Bridge. Mighty Antar (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burghfield / Burghfield Common web site

I am planning to create a Burghfield / Burghfield Common web site to bring together all the various sources of local information that are currently on the web. For example there is this Wiki entry, a Parish Council site, Newsbell, The Villager and numerous society pages. My intention is not to replace those but instead to act as a central point of reference for visitors to the area, local historians and residents seeking services/societies.

This Wiki entry contains a lot of the data I am looking for but of course I respect that this information is not mine so cannot simply be copied. So as the authors what would be your views about me highlighting core facts from this Wiki entry and linking back to the page for the details?

I should stress that I am setting up the web site as a local resident and not as web designer, which I'm not!

Thanks for your advice.

Chipkid (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sport and leisure

I removed what had every appearance of being a link farm from here. Another user has queried the removal. Can I suggest that anything to be added to such a section should be verifiable to significant third party sources, ie not just to their own websites? It can be discussed further here. --John (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlands

I deleted most of the descriptions of Wokefield Common and Omer's Gully, since neither of them is in Burghfield. The Wokefield Common text was basically a copy of what is already in the Wokefield article. I'll put the Omer's Gully text in the Sulhamstead article, where it belongs. Newburyjohn (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Burghfield. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Burghfield. 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: 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) 19:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burghfield. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/R2/CP40no483/483_0207.htm%3B7th
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911114238/http://www.burghfieldaircadets.org.uk/ to http://www.burghfieldaircadets.org.uk/

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) 16:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]