Talk:Thornham, Norfolk
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Thornham, Norfolk. 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/20170211032229/http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/consumption/groups/public/documents/general_resources/ncc017867.xls to http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/consumption/groups/public/documents/general_resources/ncc017867.xls
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) 12:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Merger proposal[edit]
@Chris j wood, Jonathan.barber, and Trickofmagic: I propose to merge Anna's Walk into Thornham, Norfolk. I am suggesting a merge as an alternative to deletion. I think that Anna's Walk is not individually notable. The Anna's Walk article is currently written like a travel guide, with only routine local mentions in the press. A greatly-condensed description of Anna's Walk from the current article will fit in the Thornham article, and the Thornham article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Anna's Walk will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Schazjmd (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have advertised the proposal at WikiProject England. Schazjmd (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support A stub about a geographic locale, and a stub about a local walk that has more to say about content that should actually be in the village article rather than in the walk article, than it does about the walk itself. Meters (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I think this walk is as notable as many shorter walks in England including local walks such as Bure Valley and Great Eastern Pingo. If other editors do not agree then it should be a permanent stub or deleted rather than merged into the village page. Footfall on this walk is high and not of a short-term interest. The article does highlight the history of the walk which I think as a walk it does not contravene Wiki guidance on not being a travel guide.Walks generally rely on history or topography to be notable for the walker if not Wiki.
Jonathan Barber (talk)23:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.barber (talk • contribs)- struck an incorrect manual signature that linked to the wrong user — Meters
- Comment Interesting. Why would you rather see it deleted than merged? And there's no such thing as a permanent stub. There is no point in stubbing sourced information if we keep it. Meters (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I just edit locally and think this is notable as a Norfolk Walk and therefore I enhanced the article. Could be reduced to a line or two on the village page but feel that doesn't really reflect real life. It's a notable walk, if Wiki doesn't do popular walks (because they are not deemed notable enough) then don't re-catogorise them or merge them, just delete it. I think people would look up the history of the walk but they can find it all over the net so doesn't need to be here if editors don't support it Jonathan.barber (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Jonathan.barber, I'm still confused. Why would you prefer to have all mention of Anna's Walk deleted, rather than Anna's Walk being described in the Thornham article, with Anna's Walk being a redirect to Thornham, Norfolk? Schazjmd (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Schazjmdr, This walk is currently in footpaths in Norfolk, where I think it should be. It could be shunted into a village pages such as Thornham or Holme or even Holme Dunes or all of them. I edited this after I saw the deletion proposal but if other editors don't believe it's notable then maybe that's the right course. It really depends on how relevant you see Wiki and how much it reflects local (england) versus global. I know this will probably result in a raft of wiki protocol derogations to be honest sorry I helped to set the hare running but though it was notable. Please don't ask for any Hare citations (humour)... Jonathan.barber (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Jonathan.barber, there is a merge proposal. It just means to combine two articles. I would rather save the encyclopedic content about Anna's Walk than to delete it, which is why I proposed a merge rather than a deletion. I just don't think it's suitable for a stand-alone article. I chose this article for the merge because Recreational walks in Norfolk states
Thornham has a very pretty 5 mile circular coastal route called Anna's Walk which takes in Holme Dunes, one of England's wildest beaches.
(I really don't know what "wiki protocol derogations" are.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Jonathan.barber, there is a merge proposal. It just means to combine two articles. I would rather save the encyclopedic content about Anna's Walk than to delete it, which is why I proposed a merge rather than a deletion. I just don't think it's suitable for a stand-alone article. I chose this article for the merge because Recreational walks in Norfolk states
- Schazjmdr, This walk is currently in footpaths in Norfolk, where I think it should be. It could be shunted into a village pages such as Thornham or Holme or even Holme Dunes or all of them. I edited this after I saw the deletion proposal but if other editors don't believe it's notable then maybe that's the right course. It really depends on how relevant you see Wiki and how much it reflects local (england) versus global. I know this will probably result in a raft of wiki protocol derogations to be honest sorry I helped to set the hare running but though it was notable. Please don't ask for any Hare citations (humour)... Jonathan.barber (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Schazjmdr, None of the village Wiki sites around feature their local walks and the Norfolk coast path would be more notable. If they did, this walk may be more suitable to Holme village or the Nature Reserve pages but I doubt it although Anna came from Thornham. Bure Valley walk and Wensum Way are not merged to the railway or Nar Valley albeit that the articles have less information and are shorter. Jonathan.barber (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you still suggesting that this should be deleted rather than merged? It's irrelevant what other articles contain or whether they have been merged. It's even more irrelevant what other village Wikis contain. This is Wikipedia. This is a walk around a village. That village's article seems an appropriate target for the redirect. If you wish to suggest a different target then please tell us what it is and why you think it is a more appropriate target. It's not simply about which article is bigger. Meters (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)