Talk:Corfe Mullen

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.

Dorset Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dorset, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics connected with Dorset. If you would like to participate, you can visit the WikiProject Dorset project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.DorsetWikipedia:WikiProject DorsetTemplate:WikiProject DorsetDorset articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Corfe Mullen

I'm really interested in the history of Corfe Mullen, and wondered if the writer of this article could get in touch with me. Contact details and form are at info@keepcmgreen.co.uk

I would, but the domain keepcmgreen.co.uk does not reolve. Who are you? Terry C (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corfe Mullen. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717022632/http://www.corfemullen-pc.gov.uk/Contents/Text/Index.asp?SiteId=50&SiteExtra=6670093&TopNavId=54&NavSideId=342 to http://www.corfemullen-pc.gov.uk/Contents/Text/Index.asp?SiteId=50&SiteExtra=6670093&TopNavId=54&NavSideId=342

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) 05:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities

Re: Edits on 14th August, @TJC: said:

I'm afraid I cannot agree with your assertion the half the content should be removed because Wikipedia is not a business directory. Some of the entries, I accept, are somewhat commercial, but schools and churches? Also the number of pubs and clubs in the town (it was a village) are relevant to the character of the location and would apply to any village or small town. Most of these entries have been there since I created the page many years ago.

Are you going to do the same on all pages that list such details? You could be kept quite busy. Terry C (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edit did not say that this article can not discuss schools and churches (which is why I kept the schools and churches that had demonstrated notability in, replacing the unsuitable lists with suitable prose).

My edit is saying that the article has to comply with Wikipedia policies – here, linked, are few relevant ones:

WP:NOTDIRECTORY: Wikipedia is not a business directory, and WP:NOTGUIDE: Wikipedia is not a guide book. We don't simply list things, regardless of whether they are notable in the context of an encyclopedia article. If there are other pages that just list the street addresses of branch libraries and cafes, yes we would delete those lists.
MOS:LIST: The article can absolutely discuss churches, schools, and even pubs and other businesses, but not as bare lists without context. These sorts of things can absolutely be relevant to the character of a place, but they say nothing on their own. By all means, write something about the facilities in Corfe Mullen. Even better, write something that demonstrates how they shape the character of the place.
WP:RS: cite reliable sources that demonstrate notability of the topic, and WP:NOR: no original research. This was the main problem with the 'Sport' and 'Entertainment' sections (aside from them being written in an unencyclopedic style and vague about details). There is nothing inherently notable about a village club, so demonstrate its notability by citing sources.

Please, by all means, reintroduce relevant details to the facilities section in line with these policies. But in the meantime, the plain lists and other trivia must go.

I started the ball rolling with the church and schools paragraphs in that edit – demonstrating, for example, how you can include the encylopedic fact that the place is served by 3 primary schools, while recognising that the details of an individual primary school are not inherently notable enough to discuss in an encyclopedia. Joe D (t) 10:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]