Talk:Wadenhoe

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northamptonshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northamptonshire-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.NorthamptonshireWikipedia:WikiProject NorthamptonshireTemplate:WikiProject NorthamptonshireNorthamptonshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyright Violation[edit]

After the addition of a copyright investigation tag I have revert the article back to the state it was in on 11 July 2011, as this is the last know copyright free version avalible.

While we at Wikipedia welcome all editors to contribute to the articles here we are unable to accept material copied and pasted from most websites (in this specific case, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66276#s3) due to site policies governing Copyright material. Note that any attempt to readd the material to the article as it was previously written may result in the addition of page protection and/or blocking. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive removal[edit]

I have changed the citation referred to above to the Wadenhoe Local History group, the text removed by the edit left a stub, the above claim of copy vio was on a 1930 publication being the VCH, a book used in a vast number of articles on wikipedia, rather than hassle with dispute on that the alternative reference gives the same information and the text is not copied and pasted from either, it is edited by a number of users over a period of time. There was also a significant removal of other text and sections in the article which fell outside the copy vio claim made, the result looked terrible and destroyed good work by editors and removed many editors work put in over a considerable period. I believe the action of removal of all sections and almost all text was not warranted and was not in keeping with usual editing practices. I shall refer to the various wikipedia guides if it is required. It is late right now but I can refer to the various wiki guidelines if required in response to any further disruptions to the article. I trust the article shall now be allowed to flourish without further disruption to the good work put in by so many editors. --Pennine rambler (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C to B[edit]

Article is within the the C to B class, there is a need to add current economy, which I know to be tourism, also details of the management of the village properties by the Wadenhoe trust. The social class of the residents is of note in this area and would also be worth adding as the village has a good share of the very wealthy and looking toward Lilford Hall persons of notable achievement in the digital age. --Pennine rambler (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations, please[edit]

I am confused by the following paragraph in the Wadenhoe article:

"By 1236 the manor was subinfeudated to John de Lacy, 2nd Earl of Lincoln. He was succeeded in 1241 by his son Edmund, who obtained livery of his father's lands by 1249 and in 1254 granted the manor to Henry de Lacy, 3rd Earl of Lincoln, for life. On Roger's death in 1264, it reverted to the Lacy's and was held in dower by Edmund's widow Alice."

Who was Roger? Also, a definition of "subinfeudated" wouldn't come amiss.

--Oldontarian 18:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]