Talk:Balcombe

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

Sussex Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations

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

Merge proposal

Guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements state that ideally the civil parish should be the catch-all article, avoiding single line articles on every village and landmark within the parish.

Therefore, I suggest that villages within the parish with a one or two sentence article, ie Balcombe Lane to be merged and redirected to this parish article. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Balcombe

Wikipedia is not "the news," but we do include a brief summary of information published in generally reliable sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Recentism the rule of thumb is that we only include what is likely to seem significant in ten years from now. I suspect that by then the village will not have been levelled by earthquakes, nobody will have been incinerated by natural gas coming out of water taps and the wells will either have failed to produce or will be quietly working day to day as those at Storrington and Singleton do now. The residents may well have moved on to protesting about a proposed wind turbine or solar array. Per due weight these protests will be mentioned but there is no need per WP:NOTNEWS for daily updates.--Charles (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is partly a matter of editorial judgment, see Wikipedia:Notability (events). For the same reason the Guardian is covering the protests closely we should give them some weight; remember fracking is banned in France, just a few miles away. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Balcombe. 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/20110608075926/http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/communityandliving/census2001/pop_parish_summary.pdf to http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/communityandliving/census2001/pop_parish_summary.pdf

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) 14:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]