Talk:Corsham

message: * Corsham is not listed in the List of towns in England. Is there a source for the claim to be a town?. -- Chris j wood 11:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim to be a town 

message: I have added a new to do list (at the top).  I invite you to claim items that you want to spend some time on, and be bold in adding new material to the article.  Click this watch link to watch the to do list. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To do

message: This infobox  looks the most appropriate.  Lets fill it out, then paste it into the article.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we have the photograph in the infobox, and the location map as a separate illustration further down the article?  I think the photo is a more striking and interesting way to start the article?  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. All we need now is the population.  Thanks for lending your expertise, Steinsky. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Got the population, and posted the infobox.  Thanks again! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: That article consists of one sentence and some links.  I think both articles will benefit from moving the material here. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Corsham Railway Cutting is part of a systematic listing of all Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and is I think best left alone. Rwendland 23:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from [[Corsham Railway Cutting]]

message: * Would someone consider, please, adding http://corshamdiary.org.uk to the list of links?  thanks v. much.  Jim Avery, web admin for Corsham Diary  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.11.20 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good site, Jim.  Historically, I added a dozen or more web links (schools, sports clubs, news feeds, that kind of thing(.  Quite rightly, fellow editors thought it looked like a web directory, and culled most of them.  I don't think your list of upcoming events meets Wikipedia's external links policy, because it doesn't link to further information that will, one day, be included in the article.  In other words, the information you post is very useful to anyone interested in Corsham, but it is not encyclopedic.  I think those worthy portals should go too.  Just my opinion.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for taking the time to have a look and explain.  Making it a requirement that the destination of a link must be encyclopaedic seems to me utterly bizarre and contrary to the spirit of the World Wide Web, but that's a discussion for another time and place.  Thanks again.  Jim.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.11.20 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Shame.  We don't normally remove stale links from references section.  Someone wrote up a whole paragraph in the style manual somewhere, but the gist is, if you can fix a stale reference by referring to an archived copy (such as the wayback machine) do so, otherwise leave it.  However, I am not sure it is the best reference for "locally famed for its peacocks" and I am sure someone can offer a more reliable source than the article that used to be on your site.  In the meantime, feel free to do what you think is best.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

text: It's in my interest for the stale link to remain, as it is likely to increase traffic to my site (and the other two listed on corshamtown.co.uk) :-) .  On the other hand, IMO it would be in your best interests to remove it.  On another topic, I seem to have filled this discussion up with various ramblings now.  Shall I delete some of my older questions and answers, or is it helpful for them to remain in case anyone has the same question later? - Jim Avery  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.11.20 (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

text: --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'll have a look for the archive on wayback and change the reference sometime in the next few days then. - Jim  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.179.40 (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I have a preference for articles to cover an entire civil parish or borough, and not just the town, as this one does.  Therefore piped links like Neston, Wiltshire link here.  This was my reasoning for mentioning the surrounding villages and hamlets in bold in the lead section, so that readers not only get an early overview of the district, but are reassured that the article is relevant to the village they are researching.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I take that point completely, but stylistically, every time I came to the page that block of bold in the lead stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Since the town itself is the centre of the parish, geographically and thematically, it makes sense to concentrate on it in the lead with maybe a mention of surrounding, smaller, settlements at the end of the lead with an expansive section later on. I had it in mind to do that, with a map and brief sections on each. That would suffice until each has its own article, but I will follow whatever guidelines and consensus establish. However, I think we are approaching WP:GA and I am working through the ToDo list. --Rodhullandemu 14:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrounding villages 

message: Now we have the infobox and an overview of the key features of the district, I think this is a B-Class article.  I have changed the box above - but is it right for me to tag it myself (I did a little of the work) or is there a place to ask an outside editor to review and tag it?
A few more to the 'to do' list attempted, and it could go for Good Article review.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article class

message: Content has been added from an article that was merged and redirected following an WP:AfD consensus. Regular editors to Corsham may wish to review and copy edit the new content as necessary. See section: Education, and compare diffs for details. --Kudpung (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge