Talk:Villages of Portland

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

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

Merging of all Portland village articles

To better organise and increase quality, I have decided to be bold and merge all the villages of Portland articles into one article. I hope you will agree that this move should improve each and every village's quality and information for readers. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive never seen anything quite like this! As I am one for each village having its own article I disagree somewhat with your move, but each to their own I suppose! good luck and happy editing. Cyberdemon007 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to reorganise the villages seperately eventually, if they individually met the criteria for GA.. Unfortunately there is just not enough content out there to warrant their own articles, so this is arguably the best method of organising them. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry MOHOD, but I agree Cyberdemon. I think each village has sufficient information (even if just a line or two of info) to be left on individual stub articles. BarretBonden (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I'm fully aware each method of organising has its own problems and its up to the individual user to decide which is personally best. I'd be happy to reorganise if there is a clear concensus amongst users. I wanted to see whether merging would increase activity and it appears that it hasn't. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Villages of Portland. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20081120121932/http://www.chiswellcommunity.org/ to http://www.chiswellcommunity.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]