Talk:Cofton Hackett

message: outstanding work on this article Leonig Mig (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

message: Various parts of the article have been tagged not as criticism, but in order to  highlight areas that can be improved. Obviously  a lot  of work has gone into this article which is well structured and already of the length and general scope of what the project  hopes to  achieve for Villages in  Worcestershire.However, although The Victoria History is an extremely  valuable source and is used frequently by  Wickipedians, wholesale copying  of large chunks is probably not such a good idea - even if the work is out of copyright and correctly cited. The inclusion of such passages often goes beyond the required scope for an encyclopedic entry, and may defeat the purpose of inline citations - which this article still needs.Some further research  will show that much of the information  can be cited, especially, for example, from John  Baker's excellent  Austin  site; while checking in  the Wikipedia if much  of the info about the Longbridge works is not already covered in  other Wikipedia articles (Longbridge and/or Austin Motor Company).
Possible contradiction between:Cofton Hackett is odd in that there is no village in the usually accepted sense of the word. There is no village centre, high street or village green lined by a church, shops and older housing.and...the centre of Cofton Hackett could be accepted as being either near the old tram terminus and Fentons the newsagents, or the Post Office in Parsonage Drive, or the corner of Rose Hill and Barnt Green Road where the village hall stands.
News Item Burglaries: This is a local news item only and most likely not of interest in  an encyclopedic entry (MOS).
Genuinely unintentional weasel words or POV - (MOS): sentences need paraphrasing  for neutrality.
Members of the Worcestershire project may  be able to help bring  this article to GA status.--Kudpung (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements

message: A significantly  large proportion of this article has been copied and pasted without  any  attempt to turn the source material into  an original  Wikipedia article. Wiki is based on  a system of citations of sources. The article needs severley  pruning  and re"writing  quoting  sources according  to  Wiki  policy  and guidelines.--Kudpung (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume this refers to the long section coppied from VCH, which has now been removed.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Isn't VCH way out of copyright? Leonig Mig (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It  might  be, but  encyclopedias don't  get  made by  simply copying  and pasting  large chunks of other people's work. VCH is an excellent  work, but not  only  is it  out of date in  many  cases due to  more recent  research, but  it's fine detail is largely of unencyclopedic value. The way  the Wikipedia works, is to  refer the reader to such  detailed works so  that  if they  want more detailed information, they  can get  it  there. The usual practice is to  synthesise anything  that  can  be of value, and cite the source.--Kudpung (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The position will vary from volume to volume.  Some (like the Worcestershrie ones) were produced before WWI.  Whether they are out of copyright will bepend on the dates of death of the authors.  VCH Worcestershire remains a useful source, but much further research has eben done since.  In other counties, volumes are still being produced.  The older VCH volumes (at least) are on-line at .  It is much better to summarise and cite a source like this than to copy and paste from it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed on copy / paste / summary point. I had misunderstood, I thought the contents was being removed on copy-vio count. Leonig Mig (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copying  and pasting

message: What this article lacks is structure, in my opinion. There is some good stuff in there, some bad, some unreferenced and it is all comingled. Is there a "template" for the structure of such articles? Leonig Mig (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL that's jumbled things up a bit! More logical for my money, hope people agree! Leonig Mig (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say each section needs some further attention still, but there's loads of good information in there, so it needs careful work. Some stuff could be dropped (indeed should be covered in other articles) but best not to throw the baby out with the bathwater in being "too scientific". Leonig Mig (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I'll set to work on restoring this article to the correct layout later this evening (if nobody else beats me to it). You are right, it should never have been changed this way. Jeni (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

text: You can just revert it, much quicker! I don't understand why it is so bad, I would say it is more logical as each subject is collected together, rather than the scattergun of issues before. Leonig Mig (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes just to expand on that, I've reviewed the headings and I'm not certain how far off they are. I've renamed them to make them more consistent with the guideline you cite. I think its unwise to insist on separating related content just to fill each section. Frankly Cofton is quite a small place. Leonig Mig (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It  is probably unusual for such a small  settlement to  be the subject  of so much  discussion. It  is very  unusual  for contributors to  make  40 (forty), possibly good faith, consecutive edits without  any  edit  summaries. This may make it  very  difficult, if not impossible, for anyone else to follow what  is going  on. --Kudpung (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cofton Hackett. 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/20110615104652/http://www.bromsgrove.gov.uk/cms/pdf/Cofton%20Hackett%20Parish%20Plan.pdf to http://www.bromsgrove.gov.uk/cms/pdf/Cofton%20Hackett%20Parish%20Plan.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615104652/http://www.bromsgrove.gov.uk/cms/pdf/Cofton%20Hackett%20Parish%20Plan.pdf to http://www.bromsgrove.gov.uk/cms/pdf/Cofton%20Hackett%20Parish%20Plan.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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cofton Hackett. 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/20080915031625/http://www.austinmemories.com/page42/page42.html to http://www.austinmemories.com/page42/page42.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) 07:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Tolkien had very strong links with Cofton Hackett during his childhood and youth.   Some research into his official biography would yield some fascinating information which would further greatly enhance this page; it is referenced in the relevant Wikipedia article.  Just to whet the appetite of an editor here are two morsels: 1) He lived with his mother in the Post Office cottage at Rednal.  2) He conducted a clandestine love affair in the Lickey Hills.  Sorry I am too old and decrepit to do this myself. Flying Stag (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: J R R Tolkien