Jump to content

Talk:Bulkington

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

I disagree with the amendments made by anonymous user 84.68.55.79 on 28 July, changing all instances of the word "village" to "town", and adding the comment "still often referred to as a village", as if the original text were out of date. I live in Bulkington and have never heard anyone refer to the place as a town, always as a village. Likewise, no shop names, service names or signs refer to it as a town. Moreover, the number of businesses and amenities in Bulkington, and indeed the size and feel of the place do not, in my opinion, justify town status. Does anyone else have any opinions on the matter, and on whether or not the changes should be reverted? --Leon Robbins 16:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Bulkington. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bulkington. 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) 11:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bulkington. 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) 21:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 January 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to change the current setup at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– DAB from Bulkington, Wiltshire, Bulkington Pass, a character, Moby Dick (1998 miniseries)#Cast and Louis Phillips (author)#Poetry (maybe the same as one of the last 2). While the is/was test (where the Moby Dick character comes up first and most) may not work well for Willingale, see Talk:Willingale, Essex#Requested move 20 November 2018 since there is another village with this name and the pass it seems disambiguation is suitable here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Think that a new RM is needed, clearly WP:NOPRIMARY. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: the last RM was closed as no consensus nearly a year and a half ago. Given that both a long time and something has changed drastically I think a new RM is indeed needed. See a similar case at Talk:Fulford, North Yorkshire#Requested move 3 August 2018 that was closed as no consensus and then Fulford, Staffordshire was created and then at Talk:Fulford#Requested move 14 May 2019 it was moved. I would suggest a new RM at Talk:Bulkington (disambiguation). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that you are right that a RM from the dab would make more sense. However I can see some editors objecting so the old RM - which should have passed anyway per reality will be visible. So have placed template here, again. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 July 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 19:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


– straightforward case of WP:NOPRIMARY. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well they were moot in the previous discussion as well, had editors followed WP:TITLE and not article titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for exactly the same reasons as before, pageviews etc, a minor fictional character doesn't change much. G-13114 (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I'm reluctant to immediately declare a lack of primary topic just because a new article exists. The problem with comparing old vs new is that measuring usage requires us to turn to unreliable off-wiki metrics like Google results, which to me appear to be 170k vs 67.6k in favour of the village. As for the Long term significance factor, I'm not sure which way this one goes, as on the one hand we have a minor character from a major liteary work, on the other hand we have an English village that has ~1000 years of history. I'd like to see better usage data for the new article before making a firm conclusion either way. Iffy★Chat -- 21:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wiltshire village also has ~1000 years of history though it does appear to have quite a bit less though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per readership usage. Both criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are met. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Parish

[edit]

When was Bulkington parish abolished and is it an unparished area?

According to VOB the parish existed at least as recently as 1974 as it says it was in Bulkington Urban District from 1894-1932, Rugby Rural District from 1932-1938 and Bedworth Urban District from 1938-1974. UKBMD says it was abolished as a parish on 1 April 1974.

Maps before 1954 do seem to show Bulkington as a parish but after show Bedworth UD & CP suggesting it was abolished around then, see this discussion. Skinsmoke thinks the parish was abolished in 1938 but Stortford thinks 1954 and I can't fine any other evidence on this and the news article in the Newspaper Archive isn't accessible to me. So yes when was the parish abolished? We seem to agree it was some time between 1938 and 1974 though.

Is Bulkington an individual unparished area? My understanding is no, see this comment about Rushmoor. Unlike Wilton Bulkington/Bedworth was never divided between districts or like or Burton (near Neston) hasn't remained unparished after the rest of the namesake place Neston became parished. If like Neston a parish is later formed that covers the pre 1938 Bedworth UD but doesn't include Bulkington then like Burton it would then become an unparished area in its own right. Even if the parish of Bulkington did exist until 1974 as noted by Stortford it would only have been an urban parish, not having its own council so yes even it it was a parish until 1974 it wouldn't have become an unparished area in its own right any more than Horsell would have been from Woking. UKBMD no longer specifies individual unparished areas and just makes reference to the part of the district, named as the district but Web Archive shows when it did and for Nuneaton it says "Unparished area which until 1.4.1974 formed the parish and municipal borough of Nuneaton", for Bedworth it says "Unparished area which until 1.4.1974 formed the parishes of Bedworth and Bulkington." and for Bulkington it says "Abolished 1.4.1974 to become part of the unparished area of Bedworth.". So I think from what I can see is that while Bulkington may have more of a distinct charactor than many other urban parishes it doesn't qualify as a separate unparished area so here and on Commons User:G-13114 it should only go under Category:Bedworth. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a transcript of the 1954 newspaper article referenced in the article:
Coventry Evening Telegraph, 13 April 1954, page 6
---
THE 'GHOST' PARISH OF BULKINGTON
Exists Due to Oversight Sixteen Years Ago
Study of an Ordnance Survey map has brought to light a curious omission in the 1938 order by which Bedworth urban district was extended to take in most of the urban parish of Bulkington.
After 16 years it has been discovered that, although general assumption was otherwise, an urban parish of Bulkington still exists.
So Mr. R. M. Willis, deputy clerk to Warwickshire County Council, told a local inquiry, held at Bedworth today for the purpose of rectifying an omission in the 1938 order.
THE DIFFERENCE
"There must be very few cases in the country where there are two urban parishes in an urban district," said Mr. Willis.
For some unknown reason the order did not say that the transferred area of Bulkington should form part of the urban parish of Bedworth.
It said only that the transferred part should form a new ward of Bedworth urban district to be known as Bulkington ward.
All subsequent registers of electors had been prepared on the basis that there was no urban parish of Bulkington.
NO OBJECTIONS
"There can be no trouble to anyone and nobody's rights will be affected," said Mr. Willis. "The object is to put in order an administration difficulty which is arising."
He suggested that a recommendation should go forward to the County Council that an order be made on the basis that the urban parish of Bulkington had, since 1938, been deemed to have been included in the urban parish of Bedworth.
Mr. R. E. Huband, clerk to Bedworth Urban District Council, said he agreed entirely with Mr. Willis and did not oppose any order that would rectify the matter.
There were no objectors.
---
I can't find a newspaper report on the outcome of the inquiry, although you get a fair sense of the direction it was likely to take. There is then the "Warwickshire (Bedworth) Confirmation Order 1954" listed at the National Archives, which I strongly suspect confirms the abolition of Bulkington as a separate civil parish, although it would need a visit to check. The Ordnance Survey was showing a separate parish boundary for Bulkington on maps revised up to 1954, but the next revision in 1957 no longer shows a parish boundary between Bulkington and Bedworth. As we've discussed before, UKBMD and Vision of Britain are very good but not entirely without errors.
As to whether it's a separate unparished area, I would say no - not least because as I've shown above, it was part of the parish of Bedworth from 1954 (and had been part of the urban district from 1938) and so forms part of the Bedworth unparished area. Even if it had existed as a separate urban parish right up to 1974, we've generally defined unparished areas by reference to the abolished urban district or borough and not the underlying urban parishes for the handful of cases where an urban district or borough still retained multiple urban parishes up to 1974.
Stortford (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bulkington&oldid=1250152060"