Jump to content

Talk:Belper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assess

[edit]

If the references were evenly distributed then this would be near a B. See Derby School Victuallers 14:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this new infobox really have to be this large? Apart from anything else it's totally screwed up the layout of the page. Sources? It seems to have beem written mainly from local knowledge plus the reference book given at the bottom of the page. Chevin 09:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the standard infobox for UK places. I don't know if there's anyway to change the size. I do think there's a lot of benefit to having standardized summary information like this. Sorry about the layout, I should have noticed. I'll have a look at how to make it look better - I haven't done that before, so it may take a day or two to get right :-). Is it just the layout problem you don't like about the infobox? --SiobhanHansa 16:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


To adjust for the info box I've integrated the photos into relevent sections of the article. There are still some layout issues with the first couple of photos where they are in the article at the same level as the info box. I can't seem to find a good solution for this that will work with any browser width. I'll look into it further. --SiobhanHansa 03:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a little go at it which (on my browser) puts the images on the right and de-emphasises the size of the infobox. See what you think Chevin 07:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me! Thanks. --SiobhanHansa 12:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in Belper

[edit]

Siobhan - noted your deletion of a church link. Your point is valid. I volunteer to do some research into the religious scene in Belper, and produce a paragraph as a result, and then add links to all churches that I can find. A little preliminary research shows that there seem to only be about 4 churches that have websites, so there's no need to fear that we'll fill the page with 20 links or so. Religion is a very significant part of the lives of a great number of people, so I think that a paragraph on this would be definitely of value (more value than knowing what Supermarkets there are, for example! :-) ). Do we have a consensus on this? 86.31.253.100 10:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a paragraph on the religious scene would be a very nice addition. It's an important part of the cultural fabric of the town. I'm against listing individual churches though. I don't think it's appropriate unless the chruch is itself notable within the town. Four websites, that represent a fraction of the religious institutions, would be a gross over representation in the article. In general, external links that merely promote a site are not appropriate for wikipedia (see WP:EL). A link to an appropriate, reasonably comprehensive listing of Belper religious groups might be good though.
On the supermarket comparison - I think more people in Belper use the supermarkets than the churches, and the fact that there are only three makes naming them individually more relevent (though it's not what I'd consider a priority) If people wanted to start naming every corner shop I'd think the comparison would be more solid. I also note that no one has tried to put in external links to the supermarket websites. -- SiobhanHansa 14:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Brown, M.P.

[edit]

Quote: Foreign Secretary 1965-7 – represented Belper from 1945 until 1970, but never actually lived here.He kept a flat in Swadlincote at the opposite end of the constituency

He had a large house on Belper Lane and kept residence there for at least a few years (personal mempory) Chevin (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that Blackbrook, Derbyshire be merged into Belper. The former is a very brief stub that only provides the location of the hamlet. As such, it can be better served by a mention in the Belper article, as it falls within the town's civil parish. Jellyman (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm against this. Blackbrook is a separate settlement to Belper and has its own history, so in my opinion should be a separate article. I recognise that the Blackbrook article is just a stub at the moment, but it will probably be possible to add detail to it over time. I will try to find time to do some of this myself. --Fluorescences (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four months on, and nothing has been done to expand it. That being the case, I'm thinking of going ahead with the merge anyway, with the proviso that of course it can be split off again if enough information is added to warrant it. I'll not do anything just yet, but unless somebody adds something to the article soon, it's getting merged... Jellyman (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No progress after six months, so I've gone ahead and merged it. Jellyman (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Belper. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Bargate, Derbyshire and Belper Lane End

[edit]

I propose to merge Bargate, Derbyshire and Belper Lane End. As with the previous merge of Blackbrook, Derbyshire, these articles are stubs (one unsourced) with little potential and both locations can better covered in the context of the nearby town whose civil parish they are within. Jellyman (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, occupied places which seem sufficiently distant to keep separate. The Belper Lane End article also has 3 independent references. Klbrain (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose; smaller settlements than these have their own articles, and there is potential for expansion of both. Dave.Dunford (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing with no merge, given the opposition and no clear support. Klbrain (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of the Derwent Valley Line

[edit]

I believe this has been superseded by a Community Rail Partnership 08:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Belper&oldid=1258760198"