Talk:Bentworth

message: 1942 is not 70 years ago. I think your picture is copyright, can you remove it? Victuallers (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the photo in 2011 when it was 69 years old. It is now 2012 so it's 70 years old. To be honest what's the point removing it when it was a few months from being 70!? Jaguar (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 1942

message: I noticed the article has historic populations for 1789 and 1861. The source given for 1861 mentions the population in 1801 and 1831, but perhaps I'm missing 1861. That said, the 1801 and 1831 data tallies with this table at Vision of Britain. Using that table I'm proposing adding the following to the article:
Population growth in Bentworth since 1801                      	Population growth in Bentworth since 1801                      	Population growth in Bentworth since 1801                      	Population growth in Bentworth since 1801                      	Population growth in Bentworth since 1801                      	Population growth in Bentworth since 1801                      	Population growth in Bentworth since 1801                      	Population growth in Bentworth since 1801                      	Population growth in Bentworth since 1801                      	Population growth in Bentworth since 1801                      	Population growth in Bentworth since 1801                      	Population growth in Bentworth since 1801                      	Population growth in Bentworth since 1801                      	Population growth in Bentworth since 1801                      	Population growth in Bentworth since 1801                      	Population growth in Bentworth since 1801
Year                                                           	1801                                                           	1811                                                           	1821                                                           	1831                                                           	1841                                                           	1851                                                           	1881                                                           	1891                                                           	1901                                                           	1911                                                           	1921                                                           	1931                                                           	1951                                                           	1961                                                           	2001
Population                                                     	425                                                            	406                                                            	548                                                            	592                                                            	609                                                            	610                                                            	558                                                            	604                                                            	571                                                            	586                                                            	522                                                            	570                                                            	614                                                            	596                                                            	466
% change                                                       	–                                                              	−4.5                                                           	+35.0                                                          	+8.0                                                           	+2.9                                                           	+0.2                                                           	−8.5                                                           	+8.2                                                           	−5.5                                                           	+2.6                                                           	−10.9                                                          	+9.2                                                           	+7.7                                                           	−2.9                                                           	−21.8
Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk	Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk	Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk	Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk	Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk	Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk	Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk	Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk	Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk	Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk	Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk	Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk	Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk	Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk	Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk	Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk
The downside is, it doesn't differentiate between Bentworth village, Burkham, Wivelrod, Thedden, Holt End, Ashley, and elsewhere but I think the historic population change is still of interest. Also I can't make out if there's a consistent format for the references, is there one? Nev1 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Demography section

message: The lead currently states "The village of Bentworth has grown in recent years, with several new houses being built, as well as the post-Second World War development in Glebe Fields." Can we be a bit more specific than recently? The population has declined from 596 in 1961 to 466 in 2001, so is this growth restricted to the number of houses of did these new buildings replace old ones? Nev1 (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Glebe Fields and Glebe Close are new and did not replace any houses; it's a bit strange that the population of the villages has declined? Jaguar (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I did know a lot of people moved to France. Jaguar (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry that's not helpful! Jaguar (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 40 years is a long time, so it's possible we're missing a trough in between so that the 2001 may be higher than 1981 for example. One option might be to say that "While several houses have been constructed recently, as well as the post-Second World War development in Glebe Fields, the populatino declined from 596 in 1961 to 466 in 2001." One concern is that the 2001 population is mentioned at the end of the first paragraph, just a few sentences before. Nev1 (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about the lead

message: OK  and . Where are we? Can we keep track here of what has been checked so no time is wasted?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't be able to check what I did until my internet connection gets fixed. Right now, I'm on dial up and it's very slow.  The network is primarily a business one and they're very prompt about taking care of things after an outage report.  All should be well again later this morning. We hope (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here! There was a flood here the other day and the internet has been too slow and unstable for me to edit. It seems to be working for the moment, so I can begin to look through the comments at the FAC now. JAGUAR  13:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too! I've been having connection problems the last two days!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you get post try to indicate what has been checked to date so if there's any remaining I can help.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm dying to make a start, but nothing outside of Wikipedia and Google is loading for me. It won't let me open a thing. I can only access most of the existing sources, so I'll rephrase whatever I can't find. I don't know what has happened to the internet - it's taking me ten seconds to load a page on Wikipedia... JAGUAR  16:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Regarding the children's home, I too can't find anything reliable that states it was burned in a fire (along with the Moon Inn), however they were both destroyed in 1951. Either way, demolished or intentionally destroyed, they were next to each other and aren't here any more, so I changed it to "destroyed". Also done a bit of copyediting and clarified the stuff about elevation. JAGUAR  17:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Need to stop chasing refs for today-before my eyes cross. ;) We hope (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

text: You would not have that problem if the references were in a separate section, sorted by author and date to refer to, rather than by ref number which changes with every move of material or addition of a ref. Example BWV 199. Better: harv refs, example BWV 22. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We could move all of the references that were in the article at the time of making this list into a sandbox so that they won't be disrupted by our changes. Or maybe try out Gerda's suggestion as I'm not sure the sandbox idea would work! JAGUAR  18:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you make sure that a sentence snippet or key word is next to the "done" on all so we can fully verify what has been checked? Don't forget to remove the ? once checked too. Making good progress...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Now the list is finished, can we start fixing all the not dones and if we need to remove any of the references, will it affect the list? JAGUAR  10:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't get an archive link for ref 77 (Gaston Grange) from the Wayback Machine, but for ref 69 I clicked on the link and it seemed to work, is that definitely the correct ref? JAGUAR  10:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've approved that one then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: #73-the Guardian article.  There is no way to read it without a subscription.  I've read it and I believe you have also, Dr. B. We hope (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

text: You're right about refs 20 & 23.  They're from HathiTrust and full view is denied to anyone not in the US.  Many times, this is the only place I can get full view of some of these sources.  There are a lot of things that haven't been uploaded to Internet Archive and one's not able to get full view at Google even if you're in the US. We hope (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any archived versions of the Gaston Grange PDF which is quite annoying, so I'll have to remove some content if it still can't be found. One more thing, can we use Ordnance Survey maps to cite the height of the village? If not the sentence "The elevation of the ground at St Mary's Church is 574 feet (175 m)" will have to be removed - no problem there. JAGUAR  18:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried everything I could think of last night to get a copy of that PDF.  It looks like the website is no longer online.  Went to where the current applications are kept and went through about 22 pages of them-nothing.  Also went to Wayback Machine, who has 90 other PDFs archived from the site, but this one isn't among them.  Didn't find anything else that described the interior in that detail either. We hope (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too! I'm surprised that the Wayback Machine had a lot of other PDFs but not the one we needed. Doesn't matter too much, I think the Gaston Grange section should be fine now. At any rate, I think we have now checked off all of the references. Before renominating I'm going to go over the article one last time and make sure that there is no margin for error. JAGUAR  19:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Jaguar, we have a new citation needed re: the axe head found in October 1935.  The "remains" [http://documents.hants.gov.uk/landscape/historic-settlement/BentworthHistoricRuralSettlementpublication.pdf PDF should take care of this.  Page 4 of the PDF identifies the axe head as artifact #21.  The map on page 11 shows where artifacts 18-21 were found-about mid-left on the map.  It looks like this is a bit out of town--am sure you can describe this better than I can. We hope (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've added the location in the prose. It's actually closer to some council housing, but they weren't around in 1935 so I didn't include them. JAGUAR  11:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Jaguar I cannot understand from where the location Miller's Farm is derived as I cannot find it in the ref given [http://documents.hants.gov.uk/landscape/historic-settlement/BentworthHistoricRuralSettlementpublication.pdf PDF. The grid ref is given and the location in Alton Museum in the PDF, but not Miller's Farm. The grid ref looks secure enough, but if a named location is required the tennis court shown on the map is the nearest. Weller's Place Farm is shown on the PDF and both Weller's Place Farm and Wellers Place Farm are shown on my 1:25000 OS map in different places. SovalValtos (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: The length of this article is hugely excessive for a small village. For example, is it really necessary to go into details of the climate? ----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, comprehensiveness is arguably the most important part of the FA criteria. The village has a long history, significant manors and a large parish. It would be erroneous to suggest that the article is excessive. JAGUAR  16:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with User:Jaguar that being comprehensive is a good thing. Agreed with User:Ehrenkater that details of climate are not appropriate, particularly as in this article those not sourced. Such statements such as 'the sea breeze occasionally reaches the area' may be difficult to source, but good luck if sources can be found. In general I think climate best covered at regional level, rather than settlement level. SovalValtos (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd thought actually that the climate might be expanded a little.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive 

message: This has a lot of links along with census links. We hope (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Census et al for Bentworth 

message: * ref #97 A Guide to the Steam Railways of Great Britain "Watercress Line" information-can't find in snippet search.
* ref #98 Who was who Can't find Ives family buried in churchyard in snippet search. We hope (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not moved to harv ref 

message: , apologies if it has been said already, but I don't think you can afford to have any more images in this article.  In its current state, it looks a bit cluttered; I would even suggest losing one or two, but that is, of course, up to you.  Pictures are nice, but they are not essential for an FA.  Luckily we have  who certainly has her work cut out.  I would not add anymore as the article is currently at bursting point. CassiantoTalk 16:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I replaced an existing picture today because I thought the old image was out of focus, but after looking through it again I see that the article could lose one or two non-essential images. There's probably too many of the church and one of the field in the geography section could also be cut. I'll see what I can do. JAGUAR  19:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I've gone through and removed ones that I think are not needed. If you disagree, come back and we'll have a chat about them.  You also like to duplicate the refs too I've noticed.  I've removed a few, but you may want to check for others.  Generally, the only time a duplicate ref is needed is after a quote and at the end of the paragraph.  Talking of which, I've left a couple of  tags.  I normally avoid doing this, but I know you'll fix them when you can. CassiantoTalk 20:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! The images should be fine now, and I'll check for any duplicated refs there are out there. The geography section affecting some of the layout in the administration section, but that could just be my monitor. The images look great now. I'll get to adding more citations throughout the day. JAGUAR  16:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I am not confident in the cit for this. How reliable a reference is "Johnson, Margaret (March 2013). "Bentworth's River". The Villager: 7." ? Is 'The Villager' a magazine, book or just a self published website with no reputation for fact checking? SovalValtos (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Further investigation suggests that the 'source' was an opinion piece by an environmental enthusiast (aren't we all} in the Parish magazine 'The Villager', which gives no confidence for its fact checking. Looking at old maps has not come up with any evidence for the stream's existence either. I think we need a more reliable source to justify the material's inclusion.  SovalValtos (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Villager is a monthly magazine/journal that is circulated in four villages - Bentworth being the main one. It's written by councillors, vicars, community people etc, so I took the entry for Bentworth Stream in the March 2013 issue as the only reliable source. I have long lost the issue, and the pdf file on Bentworth's website has been taken down (the whole domain is offline). I've looked high and low for more sources on this, but other than water extraction plants located where the stream used to be, I can't find anything else. I have two minds to remove it from this article, but it would be a shame to lose it. JAGUAR  15:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed it would be a shame to lose it, but I suppose it will still be in history to be followed up in due course. More of a shame to include such dubiously sourced material, so I will remove it now. SovalValtos (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, yep I agree the FAC has to come first. Still very interesting that it used to have its own stream! JAGUAR  22:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bentworth Stream 

message: The Who Was Who (1967) book is essentially redundant to the online edition of the work now maintained by Oxford University Press. I've had a look and it says George Cecil Ives was the adopted son of "Hon. Emma Ives ... widow of J. R. Ives of Bentworth Hall". He was educated "at home". It doesn't say anything about the family being buried in Bentworth, nor does it say anything about the pre-1832 Bentworth Hall. That is obviously an issue, but I thought I'd provide the info to form a citation. It will need to be formatted properly and is available by subscription only:
:"Ives, George (Cecil)". Who Was Who. A & C Black, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing plc, 1920–2015; online edition, Oxford University Press, 2014; online edition, April 2014 (retrieved 6 Sept 2015).
That might be easier than using the book, but it's up to you, and the other issues remain. —Noswall59 (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor, as I pointed out during the recent FAC, does the Who Was Who entry mention that Cecil Ives was a "gay rights campaigner". It wouldn't: the term relates to a much more recent era than Ives's pre-1950 lifetime.  What is the evidence for the assertion that Ives was active in this way? Brianboulton (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just added his ODNB entry as a ref for this as it does state: "campaigner for homosexual law reform". The sentence seems to have been added without a ref way back in 2011. I've only had a very quick skim through his ODNB entry but with a slight tweak to the family burial bit (as I'm not seeing that info in it), it may be possible to remove the Who was Who ref? Are you able to access the ODNB, Jaguar? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

text: The ODNB entry says that Ives was cremated at Golders Green crematorium, rather than buried with his family. Personally, I think all this information about Ives is marginal to an article about the village of Bentworth, and barely worth the effort of searching for sources. When the article is revived I'd be inclined to drop it. I agree with the doctor that so far as the article's development is concerned, a period of around three months should elapse, followed by a thorough peer view in which I will be pleased to participate. Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, fine if you wish to keep this info in. Brianboulton (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you'd expect a notable people section for settlement articles. If there were more notable figures I'd favour just a list with birth and dates dates and occupation, but seems as there's little anyway I think just stating the connection with Bentworth Hall without going into detail is OK. The most important thing is that it is verifiable in the source given ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Was Who 

message: The text says "the most prominent crops are ...". Is that the case that they ARE, or is it that they WERE in 1911. Oats, Turnips, now? I do not have access to the source.SovalValtos (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not suggesting getting rid of the 1911 info, just changing the tense and hopefully someone will find more recent info to include. SovalValtos (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The source should be accessible if you place the cursor over the ref number and then click on the blue link that appears in the box. The source dates from 1911 and hence is not usable for statements about today, so I have adjusted the sentences about crops and woodland. However the area of the parish needs checking as well, as it may have changed since 1911, and it would anyway be preferable if the 1911 info is incorporated into the history section. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominent Crops 

message: Does anyone have access to this source to add it? I have heard it might be relevant. Reports of the Sub-Committee of the South-Western Group of Museums & Art Galleries on the Petrological Identification of Stone Axes. (PPS vol 28
(1962) pp209-266)
The Bentworth axe-head has the number 749 written on it. Does the source mention basalt or just spotted slate? SovalValtos (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't help on that one. Speaking of axe-head refs, can anyone shed light on why it's not possible to follow the link of the "County of Hampshire" ref that's used in the article to support the statement "indicating occupation in prehistoric times"? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot help with regards to the "County of Hampshire" ref, other than to say there was a period of beneficial frenetic editing a month or so ago when at least one other ref got lost. Perhaps going back to mid August might find the link? SovalValtos (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The "County of Hampshire" ref was inserted by  with this edit; I've never formatted refs in that way, so cannot say why it isn't functioning properly, but it obviously wasn't functioning from its first insertion. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axe-head ref 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bentworth. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bentworth.info/parish/pdf/Bentworth%20Parish%20Plan%202008.pdf
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.durley.hampshire.org.uk/dhspages/images/no16a.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bentworth. 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/20081202002638/http://www.durley.hampshire.org.uk/ to http://www.durley.hampshire.org.uk/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bentworth.info/newsletter/newsletter-archive-right.php?file=text%2Fpublished%2F2010-03-23%40s20100323093518%40p20100323094039%40k20100430235959_Stella_Strachan~NMB.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bentworth.info/newsletter/newsletter-archive-right.php?file=text%2Fpublished%2F2010-10-23%40s20101023172641%40p20101023175309%40k20101130235959_Steve_Clarke~NMB.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bentworth. 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/20120301122003/http://www.roman-britain.org/places/neatham.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/places/neatham.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified