Talk:East Bergholt

East Anglia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia 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.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia 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.

Description of "Old Hall Community"

Like User:Xmassocialist (I believe), I'm a newbie too but my edit of the description of "Old Hall Community" was an attempt to restore a NPOV. My edit can be supported by reference to printed material issued by Old Hall Community. User:Xmassocialist's description of the motivation of community members might have been inspired by a wish to be droll, perhaps, or to be satirical. It falls short, I believe, of the Wikipedia aim of being objective and evidence-based. Pangapilot 18:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pompous git

(in reply to User:Troothwillout's learned comment - not) Pompous I may be but calling me a git is a gratuitous insult! If you want Wikipedia to be an informative and objective encyclopedia, this is hardly the way. If you want to scribble graffiti on the playground wall, there you go! Pangapilot 20:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Flatford?

Oppose - think there is sufficient material for two separate articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree with Martinevans. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose definitely enough material for separate articles Burley22 (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]