Talk:Holt, Worcestershire

	Worcestershire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Worcestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Worcestershire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WorcestershireWikipedia:WikiProject WorcestershireTemplate:WikiProject WorcestershireWorcestershire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A very complete history, but absolutely no information available about the current day, and no references whatsoever to check on the source(s). It mostly reads like an essay, which could suggest copyvio. I've contacted the major contributors/editors and if nothing happens in a day or two, I'll reduce it to a stub.--Kudpung (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google brings up nothing to suggest its a copyvio. To claim a copyvio you need to have proof, and there simply isn't any. I suspect its just a well written piece of text that just hasn't been sourced. It would be much more productive to try to source it than to remove it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like when the article was created some of the content was copied or adapted from a website, although it looks like the creator of the article owns the copyright (if there isn't a reply from the user then maybe it could be confirmed by emailing the website). snigbrook (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I very cautiously wrote: "could suggest" when I mentioned copyvio. I've checked the article history and the creator is User:PeterHancocks who has not been active since 2006. The article is clearly OR but he provides a bibliography on his website at at here. I'm not sure what we are supposed to do about this.--Kudpung (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a few days and I'll see what sources I can dig out. Jeni ^(talk) 13:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're pretty good at this sort of thing Jeni, but I think your're going to have your work cut out here to find sources for the existing articles. Wikipedia:No original research is unambiguous, but this and his Little Witley article were well researched and written in good faith, and they have a rare quality about them that should be retained in the encyclopedia. I have written to him by e-mail as I am sure he no longer logs on to Wiki, and I feel sure he will come on line and we can all come up with something together that complies with the rules. In the meantime I have removed all the ugly cn tags I placed. --Kudpung (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can dig out whatever citations I can, which should suffice pending whatever we decide to do next! :) Jeni ^(talk) 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Bromley[edit]

There are certainly inaccuracies in relation to Henry Bromley. In 1601 he was arrested as a supporter of the Earl of Essex, but as he was not attainted, his lands were not confiscated. In fact, he had to apply for permission to sell some of them to pay his fine, although he actually mortgaged his estates in Montgomeryshire, not those around Holt. There is actually quite a lot of useful material to support/refute other parts of this article in VCH, and the volume on this parish is easily available online. Sjwells53 (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon the first step is removing the incorrect information from this article. Would you like to do the honours? Nev1 (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holt Fleet. 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://archive.is/20020805075557/http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/localhistory/localhis.htm to http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/localhistory/localhis.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 01:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]