This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Wiltshire 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.WiltshireWikipedia:WikiProject WiltshireTemplate:WikiProject WiltshireWiltshire articles
Heywood Preparatory School was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 23 October 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
Corsham. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
I have added a new to do list (at the top). I invite you to claim items that you want to spend some time on, and
be bold in adding new material to the article. Click
this watch link to watch the to do list. --
Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (
Talk)
09:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Could we have the photograph in the infobox, and the location map as a separate illustration further down the article? I think the photo is a more striking and interesting way to start the article? --
Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (
Talk)
10:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)reply
That article consists of one sentence and some links. I think both articles will benefit from moving the material here. --
Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (
Talk)
14:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Good site, Jim. Historically, I added a dozen or more web links (schools, sports clubs, news feeds, that kind of thing(. Quite rightly, fellow editors thought it looked like a web directory, and culled most of them. I don't think your list of upcoming events meets
Wikipedia's external links policy, because it doesn't link to further information that will, one day, be included in the article. In other words, the information you post is very useful to anyone interested in Corsham, but it is not encyclopedic. I think those worthy portals should go too. Just my opinion. --
Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (
Talk)
19:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Many thanks for taking the time to have a look and explain. Making it a requirement that the destination of a link must be encyclopaedic seems to me utterly bizarre and contrary to the spirit of the World Wide Web, but that's a discussion for another time and place. Thanks again. Jim. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.69.11.20 (
talk)
04:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
OK, I have put my mouse where my mouth is, and removed the following 4 links from the article. While they provide useful additional information about Corsham, I don't think their information is encyclopedic in the spirit described by
English Wikipedia's external links policy.
I have also tweaked some of the other links so that they link into what (in my opinion) are the most interesting and encyclopedic pages on those sites. Is the article looking any better for it? --
Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (
Talk)
08:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I came across this profile of Corsham recently. Not sure if it should be added as an external link or not, but it might well be interesting if looking to add a little more to this page.
[1] - Jim Avery —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.172.179.40 (
talk)
12:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Please note that the web site "Corsham Net" in the references section has now been removed. It is now (and will remain for the time being) only a simple site of links to other important sites in Corsham - I presume it will no longer be suitable to list it in the references section. - Jim Avery —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.172.179.40 (
talk)
11:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Shame. We don't normally remove stale links from references section. Someone wrote up a whole paragraph in the style manual somewhere, but the gist is, if you can fix a stale reference by referring to an archived copy (such as the wayback machine) do so, otherwise leave it. However, I am not sure it is the best reference for "locally famed for its peacocks" and I am sure someone can offer a more
reliable source than the article that used to be on your site. In the meantime, feel free to do what you think is best. --
Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (
Talk)
15:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)reply
It's in my interest for the stale link to remain, as it is likely to increase traffic to my site (and the other two listed on corshamtown.co.uk) :-) . On the other hand, IMO it would be in your best interests to remove it. On another topic, I seem to have filled this discussion up with various ramblings now. Shall I delete some of my older questions and answers, or is it helpful for them to remain in case anyone has the same question later? - Jim Avery —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.69.11.20 (
talk)
08:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Updating the stale link to refer to the wayback machine keeps the traffic away from your new site (sorry), and still allows readers to check the citation. But the wayback machine is not working (again) today.
Ramblings? This talk page is short. Long ones like
Talk:Northern Ireland are archived occasionally. Better not to delete comments, as the vandalism patrol have quick trigger fingers.
Thanks. I'll have a look for the archive on wayback and change the reference sometime in the next few days then. - Jim —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.172.179.40 (
talk) 12:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC) ... later ... okay I've changed the reference to point to the archive thanks, and have registered on wikipedia so I can be identified properly now.
Corshamjim (
talk)
13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Surrounding villages
I have a preference for articles to cover an entire civil parish or borough, and not just the town, as this one does. Therefore piped links like [[Corsham|Neston, Wiltshire]] link here. This was my reasoning for mentioning the surrounding villages and hamlets in bold in the lead section, so that readers not only get an early overview of the district, but are reassured that the article is relevant to the village they are researching. --
Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (
Talk)
14:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)reply
I take that point completely, but stylistically, every time I came to the page that block of bold in the lead stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Since the town itself is the centre of the parish, geographically and thematically, it makes sense to concentrate on it in the lead with maybe a mention of surrounding, smaller, settlements at the end of the lead with an expansive section later on. I had it in mind to do that, with a map and brief sections on each. That would suffice until each has its own article, but I will follow whatever guidelines and consensus establish. However, I think we are approaching
WP:GA and I am working through the ToDo list. --
Rodhullandemu14:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Article class
Now we have the infobox and an overview of the key features of the district, I think this is a B-Class article. I have changed the box above - but is it right for me to tag it myself (I did a little of the work) or is there a place to ask an outside editor to review and tag it?
The article has been greatly expanded
[2], since the assessment of 2007 that demoted it to Start class. I have promoted it to B class again, and crossed many items off the to-do list. --
Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (
Talk)
14:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge
Content has been added from an article that was merged and redirected following an
WP:AfD consensus. Regular editors to Corsham may wish to review and copy edit the new content as necessary. See section: Education, and compare diffs for details. --
Kudpung (
talk)
02:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Cosseham vs. Cosseha
In the history section it is stated that Corsham is mentioned in the Domesday book as Cosseham and further down that it is recorded as "''Cosseha'' in 1086". To me the latter seems to also refer to the Domesday book and to be a misreading not considering the 'hook' above the latter "a", s. the image on
https://opendomesday.org/place/ST8670/corsham/, which is to be interpreted as "m" here.
Agreed. You would be entirely justified in removing the mentions of Cosseha and Coseham.
For the pronunciation, as a Wiltshire resident I've always heard Cor-shum (not a typo, the 'a' is spoken as 'u'). Likewise Melkshum and Chippnum (for Chippenham). --
Wire723 (
talk)
20:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply