Talk:Milton Regis

Kent Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East 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.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Kent tasks:

Here are some Kent related tasks you can do:

Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category.
Edit the Top and High importance articles.
Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury
Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council
NPOV: K College
Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles
Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent
Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society
Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles

Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion.

History

Please note the warning to editors in the History section. I'm working on a revised section in my sandbox and will coipy it back to the main article in a couple of days. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning lifted, sandbox work copied back. Please help to expand this section though! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

There are only a few citations in the page and few of them used a citation template, most being bare URLs. Some were old URLs which may have suffered from link rot and need checking. I have been through sorting out the templates and have moved all citations in with the external links to make maintenance easier. Inline references should be brief and link to full citation in the bibliography. I will shortly check out the links and fill out the templates where they are valid, unless anyone else wants to jump in and do it first! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider the form of references which might be preferred if this article ever got near GA or FA status. I'm not sure that very brief inline citation records are necessarily preferable for that - and may, if anything, be not preferred at all. Someone got the Wormshill article up to FA standard (and v nice it is too) and might be prepared to take a glance at this and give an opinion. I don't tend to work too much on articles at that end of the spectrum so I don't know for sure whether any form is preferred, although I do tend to find inline cites easier to follow. Good work on this mind - well done. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've assisted on the Rochester Castle and Warkworth Castle pages, both of which achieved FA status and use the separate reference from citation. I have subsequently adopted the style for pages I've created since I find it easier. Bibliographic details are moved out of the text making them easier to maintain and reducing the break in the flow of an editor's thought, for instance <ref>Stenton p47</ref>. I find it makes citing citations easier, consider <ref>Pepys, entry for 30 June 1667 (quoted in Restoration House)</ref>. It is probably not of concern for short pages like Milton, but something like Rochester Cathedral where relatively few sources are used but page references made is easier. All IMHO of course! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wonder if the key there isn't that there are relatively few sources for those articles? Again, just opinion, but I think place articles might tend to have slightly more sources - given the history of Milton I'd sort of expect there to be quite a lot more stuff that could be added actually. I might even get around to that at some point! Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are correct about the few vs many issue; you are certainly correct in your expectation that there are more sources - watch this space! Once I've knocked the existing text into a bit better shape I intend to do a literature search through the history section of my library looking for Milton Regis, Kemsley and Sittingbourne. Where for instance are references to the workhouse which became the hospital at the end of Union Street (latterly Milton High Street)? If you are wanting something to get your teeth into, what is going on on Church Marshes? The website is out of date and the council only seem to be interested in the rubbish dump. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Milton Regis. 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/20120325225556/http://www.medwaypilots.co.uk/page2.htm to http://www.medwaypilots.co.uk/page2.htm

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) 07:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Milton Regis. 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) 13:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]