Talk:Melcombe Bingham

England Low‑importance

	England portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This redirect 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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dorset Low‑importance

	This redirect 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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merging of Melcombe Bingham with current parish

It seems detrimental to researchers using Wiki to have the centuries-long existence of Bingham's Melcombe, the family seat of my ancestors, Melcombe Bingham extant, further muddled by modern merging of this very distinct locale, since this separate entry, regardless of some redundancy, clarifies historical records, family seats, exists clearly on the OS maps, and is intimately tied to family history research records of hundreds of years' existence. In this age of digital records, space for a small, linked article that may contain references to another closely associated locale, is within reason. Would an article on The Tower of London be merged with "London" because there was redundancy? There is always overlapping data when dealing with ancient sites, making it all the more important to clarify specifics by delineating differences, rather than attempting to erase those differences by merging data. After all, the parish used to exist. It was a fact. Clarity is critical in research. Countrygirl2of6 (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing. The discussion on this issue has been occurring here, so I shall add a copy of your comment over there. Please add any further comments over there, so all the discussion is in one place. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]