Talk:Winterbourne, Gloucestershire

comment

I always thought that the "winter-bourne" was the Bradley brook rather than the frome as that actually does dry up to mud in the summer sometimes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.34.223.1 (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger from Civil Parish of Winterbourne

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Merge David Edgar (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Both this article and Civil Parish of Winterbourne essentially discuss the same place, and are largely a duplication of information. The only additional information contained on the "Civil Parish" page is the name of the three additional settlements within the parish, and the proximity to two motorways. The Gallery contains three images (one not very good) that are not contained on the village page and a poorer, alternate image to one already on the village article. The section on "Notable residents" has been directly copied from one page to the other.

See the essay at Wikipedia:Integrate. This example is potentially a violation of Wikipedia:Content forking (if there was anything significant to write about the village that could not be accommodated on the parish page it would not be, but there isn't).

For an article that has achieved Wikipedia:Good article status and includes a village within a parish (or, in this case community) see Aberdaron. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment What would happen to Winterbourne Down, Gloucestershire, Hambrook and Frenchay? Perhaps it would be better if Civil Parish of Winterbourne also included summaries of these areas. Then there would be less overlap with Winterbourne, Gloucestershire, leaving Civil Parish of Winterbourne as a more general article. It should also be noted that WP:INT is not policy. --Trevj (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Reply You are correct that WP:INT is not policy (I did say it was an essay), but Wikipedia:Content forking is a content guideline, which though not as strong as a policy, we are supposed to abide by. There is no reason why the articles at Winterbourne Down, Hambrook and Frenchay should not continue to exist, and that would be normal for parishes with significant subsidiary settlements (the quoted example of Aberdaron has quite large articles for the settlements of Y Rhiw and Bardsey Island—and separate stubs for the former parishes of Bodferin and Llanfaelrhys—which are merely summarised in the main article, whereas the smaller settlements are redirects). On the other hand, it may be that people would prefer to merge the whole lot into one. Personally, I don't think the article on Winterbourne Down would be any great loss if it were merged (there isn't a lot of content); those on Hambrook and Frenchay might be more problematic as they do contain a bit of content (not so much that it couldn't be accommodated on the main page) and, Frenchay in particular, is possibly better known than Winterbourne. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment There are many thousands of civil parishes in England, yet Civil Parish of Winterbourne seems to be the sole article with such a name. This must tell us something: it could be

1. so we need articles on all the others too ... or it could be
2. wherever the parish is named after one main village (as it usually is) these articles would largely duplicate the village article. Parish councils and parish boundaries are not very notable

I take the second of these views, and I think merger is a good idea. We would just need to make sure that Winterbourne, Gloucestershire includes overall information about the parish, thus: Winterbourne gives its name to a civil parish, which also includes the villages of Winterbourne Down, Hambrook and Frenchay. Andrew Dalby 11:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Merge into Winterbourne, Gloucestershire

The "Civil parish..." article doesn't add much, and is almost an orphan (it's only linked from the pages for the villages within it. I would suggest that a section in the village article is all that's needed about the CP, and that only a line or 2. Maybe the lead should read "...large village and civil parish..."

• Merge into Winterbourne, Gloucestershire as per above. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Merge into Winterbourne, Gloucestershire, based on the observations of Andrew Dalby - this is the only civil parish in England (as far as I can see) which has an article to itself where there's a settlement with the same name. There are a couple in NI (e.g. Desertmartin (parish)), but it looks like all county WikiProjects under WP:England follow the format of putting both the civil parish and the settlement in the same article, so we should follow WP:NCCS. Zangar (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Merge. Only one article is needed, and the parish can be mentioned in the articles about the villages without making the pages too long. If the village and parish articles were expanded separately, it's likely that most of the information would be duplicated. One problem is the infobox - population requires a number, and it's ambiguous whether this should be for the parish, or for the village if separate figures are available. As it looks like this will be merged, I have made a list of articles about parishes in England at User:Peter E. James/parish. The articles in the first section are similar to this one (but all are stubs) and can probably be merged and redirected. Some articles in the second section may be suitable for merging, depending on length of the main articles about the places. Peter E. James (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

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.