Talk:New Buckenham

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.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

East Anglia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia 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.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2016[edit]

Dear user 'Onel5969', I note you deleted input to this page referring to the Annual Art Exhibition that occurs in this village - (it is a very long established and highly respected event, note large placards currently standing on the village green as usual). It appears you reside in Arizona..... I expect it would be helpful to other users and me, if you could say why you deleted this factually correct addition to the page ? Observer900 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging onel5969. Undoubtedly becasue it was unsourced. You should realise that by now, having been told the same thing yourself! If it is that famous, someone, somewhere, will have written upon it in a reliable, secondary source. Mind you, WP:TRIVIA sometimes applies. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please explain how you 'source' a factual thing like the art show......, it is a simple fact about the place, there's a church too, an enormous edifice of considerable importance, some readers might find that interesting, how would you 'source' that... ??.... these are simple facts...... Observer900 (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

similarly what was wrong with including a link to the village society webpage that includes a lot of interesting and carefully assembled material, that the same user tried to put up a few days ago that was also struck off immediately by an editor who seems to live miles away... ? you cannot 'source' that sort of thing, it is a fact relevant to the page. Observer900 (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Observer900 (and thanks for the ping Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi!) - There are a couple of issues. First, when you make a change and source it with "Source; 1597 map and numerous sequential OS Sheets + local knowledge" - that's not a valid source. Even if you linked to an actual map, the changes to the article would amount to your interpretation of that map, which is WP:OR. Same thing with the next edit change you attempted. I'll let Charlesdrakew speak as to why they removed the link to the Society's webpage. I reverted an edit of uncited material to an article which has already been tagged as lacking sources. If a lack of sources issue already exists, no sense in adding to that problem. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Observer900 I see you are a new editor and from my experience not everything in Wikipedia is immediately intuitive. On your talk page [1] at the top is a welcome message from User talk:I dream of horses with links to several articles which might well help you. She has offered more help if you want it, but dipping in to the linked articles should help clarify some of the Wikipedia mysteries. Another place to ask for help is Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions which is directed towards newer editors. SovalValtos (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Observer900 As I have a particular knowledge of New Buckenham I thought I could usefully add to the page. I thought my addition about the fete and the link to the Society's website utterly uncontentious and of interest to readers. I am dismayed that they have been removed as they appear to follow the spirit and guidelines of Wikipedia. I am a complete beginner in editing Wikipedia and do not wish to be put off making my contributions, for example I also have a paragraph that enlarges (with citations) the paragraph on A Planned Town but I wonder if this will go the same way as the link. NR16NB (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Buckenham. 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/20170211032229/https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/consumption/groups/public/documents/general_resources/ncc017867.xls to http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/consumption/groups/public/documents/general_resources/ncc017867.xls

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 07:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]