Talk:Upton Grey

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.

Hampshire Low‑importance

	Hampshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire 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.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Can we have a grown-up discussion about this rather than the absurd put-it-up-take-it-down game of ping-pong that is currently happening? Tell me where your gripe is and I'm sure we can reach an accommodation. My email is hugh[at]chevallier.co.uk

Ta

Yes. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a village newsletter. Whilst I'm sure you're proud of the village's community endeavours, what you are adding is not encyclopaedic material. Nuttah (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm not fully aware of where to respond. As you know, I'm new to this lark. If you look, you'll see I have been trying to contact you in various locations...

I can now begin to understand where you're coming from, though the number of pages on wikipedia that contain items more relevant to a social history than an encyclopaedia run into the millions.

Surely one of wikipedia's strengths is its breadth. I have given objective details about important events in the life of a village. Of course such small-scale goings-on would have no place in an encyclopaedia with a finite number of pages. But the beauty of wikipedia is that it can, should and does provide such information.

What possibly got my goat was that you accused me of advertising - and I maintain that I am wholly innocent of that charge.

Look again at what you last removed - I really was trying to tread very cautiously - and ask yourself whether it added to or detracted from the use of the page.

"Encyclopaedic material"? The first definition of encyclopaedic in my Oxford dictionary is "comprehensive in terms of information". Hughchev (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ho.

You may think that, I really recommend reading Wikipedia's policies - especially WP:V, WP:GNG and WP:NOT. I note that whilst writing this a fourth editor has come to the decision that the material is not encyclopaedic. Nuttah (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should remind you of what you wrote a few hours ago... I quote verbatim:

"While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion."

There is no intention to advertise or promote, and your later posts seem to acknowledge that, so please: if objective prose is acceptable, might you accept it? It really isn't doing any harm!

Hughchev (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Upton Grey. 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) 11:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]