[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:North Petherton

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

Acetylene

[edit]

The North Petherton Rosco Acetylene Company did exist, but did is own the plant in Mill Lane? According to Somerset in the Age of Steam (ISBN 0-86183-481-X) the plant was operated by the North Petherton Gas & Carbide Co, formed in 1906. Did they take over Rosco, perhaps as part of an expansion of the service??? 80.42.43.138 15:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Petherton Schools

[edit]

Mary Harvey retired in April 2008 - an update is needed 88.111.101.141 (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose merging Huntworth into this article as it is within the parish and is unlikely to have a significant article in its own right. Any thoughts?— Rod talk 18:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support this simply because Huntworth is geographically separate from both Bridgwater and North Petherton - located on the other side of the M5 from both. If it were a suburb of one of the other then it would definitely merit inclusion. There are cases in Wikipedia when stub articles are not a bad thing and will never make it past stub size. A small but geographically distinct hamlet like this is a perfect example. --TimTay (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK proposal removed.— Rod talk 09:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also propose merging Northmoor Green /Moorland (which needs some tidying up) into this article.— Rod talk 15:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as with Huntworth, if you look on the map at where the hamlet is located you will see it is geographically separate. I absolutely support any merger of a district/suburb which has become part of the urban area of any town, but in cases such as this I do think that a separate article is merited. --TimTay (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal removed.— Rod talk 09:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De-merger proposal

[edit]

Further to the above proposals, to me this article seems to have a split personality, with items specific to North Petherton 'town' and North Petherton parish running into each other. The parish is, as the article says, one of the largest in the area and does include several distinctly geographically separate villages, hamlets and features. Consequently I agree with TimTay's comments above that Huntworth and Northmoor Green deserve separate entries. However I would go further and suggest having two separate articles, one for the geographic entity of the town and another for the political entity of the parish which (to me at least) are clearly different and distinct. The parish article could then include references to North Petherton 'urban area', Moorland, North Newton, Hedging, Huntworth, Somerset Bridge etc (without merging them into it), as well as the sections on the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal and the like. For example, see the articles on the parishes of Bridgwater Without, Burnham Without and Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge. Of course this clear geographic -v- political distinction is somewhat confused by the fact that the political entity - the parish council - is actually called North Petherton Town Council, with a remit covers the entire parish, not just the main 'urban area', however I think that the article would still be improved by the separation, provided that there is a clear explanation. Any thoughts? 85.210.207.59 (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether if there is enough unique material for each to make separate articles viable. Would a lot of the material need to appear in both articles? It might be better to expand this article and make clear the difference between the two. If readers are looking for information on the town or parish would they want to have to visit two articles to get the information? Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge and the others were created because the civil parishes include unique settlements with different identities and to deal with a red link on List of civil parishes in Somerset and Sedgemoor which doesn't apply in this case. If there were clearly enough content for two separate articles then I wouldn't strongly object. I would suggest registering a username and then creating a draft in userspace and inviting other editors to look at them before posting the article into mainspace. An alternative would be to expand the existing article to make the differences clear, as this would help with consistency with other village and parish article in Somerset and throughout England.— Rod talk 07:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Splitting which advocates this process if an article becomes very long - which I don't think applies here. It would also be worth considering Wikipedia:Summary style#Avoiding unnecessary splits.— Rod talk 07:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamp

[edit]

Any objection to the Hamp redirect being changed to HAMP (disambiguation)?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Otherwise, anyone typing "hamp" (without capitalizing, as most people are wont to do) in the search field will not see all of the other possible meanings of hamp/HAMP. "North Petherton" is freely accessible from the disambig page. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But should the dab page be Hamp rather than HAMP?— Rod talk 21:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We could either have two dab pages (HAMP and Hamp), or combine them into a single page (Hamp); the latter is the preferred way (see WP:DPAGES). — Loadmaster (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It does appear Hamp is the better choice for the page name. Whoever created the page (User:Loadmaster) just happened to do it for HAMP.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted this as a possibly controversial requested move. They went ahead and did it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of "Parrett"

[edit]

An inventive pseudo-scholarly etymology of the river name "from the Latin Paradæ", credited to Stephen Robinson Somerset Place Names 1992, would be unique in British hydronymy. See River Parrett for the mainstream opinions, relating to the Parrett as a border, none of which include a Latin derivation. Can we remove this "cited" etymology?--Wetman (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable - I believe Robinson has been criticised for other derivations in his book.— Rod talk 16:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eilert Ekwall just says "TUN on R. Parrett".— Rod talk 16:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on North Petherton. 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) 20:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on North Petherton. 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) 20:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on North Petherton. 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) 12:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on North Petherton. 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) 19:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Petherton&oldid=1207997006"