From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |
| WikiProject Devon (Rated Start-Class) |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics connected with Devon. If you would like to participate, you can visit the WikiProject Devon project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale. |
|
[edit] Expansion
I have been slowly adding to this article but if anyone else wants to contribute that would great. It has been suggested that we should follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements. In particular contributions which have sources other than the Book of Cullompton and the Second Book of Cullompton are welcome. At present these are my main references as they were all I could find last week in Cully library.--NHSavage (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- The History sections has too many sub-sections. It could probably be just one section with each "sub-section" as seperate paragraphs. bsrboy (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- As it stands, yes it has too many subsections - however this gives a structure for adding future material. The section on the Roman forts which I have just added is big enough for its own subsection as is Etymology. If these have their own subsection it become very hard not to have the rest in their own subsections.--NHSavage (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's not really about the size of content that you're going to be inserting. It's the relevance. Would it really help people? Often it needs to be more than two (decent sized paragraphs long. I prefer to do: Ealy History, Industrial Revolution, 20th Century. Etymology also merits its own sub-section. The external links that are here, as well, need to be removed or used as references, using the cite web template. bsrboy (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I know the external links need removing - if you look I have only added references with the cite template. I can't do everything at once. Your schema contradicts what is recomended at Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements - "Avoid using headings that arrange the history of a settlement according to century or decade".--NHSavage (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think it means 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th century. The 20th century is often used for articles. Feel free to organise it however you want, but my preference, is to order it chronologicaly. I was just giving some ideas for the article. bsrboy (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge Cullompton Manor House to here
The article at Cullompton Manor House should be merged here. That article is very short and I do not believe that the Manor House on its own is notable enough for its own article any way. Plus its actually a copyvio from here.--NHSavage (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Cullompton Manor House should be deleted, because it is copy and pasted. A paragraph or so about it should be added to this article, using http://www.cullompton.org/the-manor-house.html as a reference. bsrboy (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted links
the following links have been removed from the article but may still be useful.
--NHSavage (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
