Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Claim to be a town[edit]

To do[edit]

I have added a new to do list (at the top). I invite you to claim items that you want to spend some time on, and be bold in adding new material to the article. Click this watch link to watch the to do list. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This infobox {{Infobox England place}} looks the most appropriate. Lets fill it out, then paste it into the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have the photograph in the infobox, and the location map as a separate illustration further down the article? I think the photo is a more striking and interesting way to start the article? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. All we need now is the population. Thanks for lending your expertise, Steinsky. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got the population, and posted the infobox. Thanks again! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article consists of one sentence and some links. I think both articles will benefit from moving the material here. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corsham Railway Cutting is part of a systematic listing of all Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and is I think best left alone. Rwendland 23:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Good site, Jim. Historically, I added a dozen or more web links (schools, sports clubs, news feeds, that kind of thing(. Quite rightly, fellow editors thought it looked like a web directory, and culled most of them. I don't think your list of upcoming events meets Wikipedia's external links policy, because it doesn't link to further information that will, one day, be included in the article. In other words, the information you post is very useful to anyone interested in Corsham, but it is not encyclopedic. I think those worthy portals should go too. Just my opinion. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for taking the time to have a look and explain. Making it a requirement that the destination of a link must be encyclopaedic seems to me utterly bizarre and contrary to the spirit of the World Wide Web, but that's a discussion for another time and place. Thanks again. Jim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have put my mouse where my mouth is, and removed the following 4 links from the article. While they provide useful additional information about Corsham, I don't think their information is encyclopedic in the spirit described by English Wikipedia's external links policy.

I have also tweaked some of the other links so that they link into what (in my opinion) are the most interesting and encyclopedic pages on those sites. Is the article looking any better for it? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this profile of Corsham recently. Not sure if it should be added as an external link or not, but it might well be interesting if looking to add a little more to this page. [1] - Jim Avery —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note that the web site "Corsham Net" in the references section has now been removed. It is now (and will remain for the time being) only a simple site of links to other important sites in Corsham - I presume it will no longer be suitable to list it in the references section. - Jim Avery —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shame. We don't normally remove stale links from references section. Someone wrote up a whole paragraph in the style manual somewhere, but the gist is, if you can fix a stale reference by referring to an archived copy (such as the wayback machine) do so, otherwise leave it. However, I am not sure it is the best reference for "locally famed for its peacocks" and I am sure someone can offer a more reliable source than the article that used to be on your site. In the meantime, feel free to do what you think is best. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's in my interest for the stale link to remain, as it is likely to increase traffic to my site (and the other two listed on :-) . On the other hand, IMO it would be in your best interests to remove it. On another topic, I seem to have filled this discussion up with various ramblings now. Shall I delete some of my older questions and answers, or is it helpful for them to remain in case anyone has the same question later? - Jim Avery —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Updating the stale link to refer to the wayback machine keeps the traffic away from your new site (sorry), and still allows readers to check the citation. But the wayback machine is not working (again) today.
  2. Ramblings? This talk page is short. Long ones like Talk:Northern Ireland are archived occasionally. Better not to delete comments, as the vandalism patrol have quick trigger fingers.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll have a look for the archive on wayback and change the reference sometime in the next few days then. - Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC) ... later ... okay I've changed the reference to point to the archive thanks, and have registered on wikipedia so I can be identified properly now. Corshamjim (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surrounding villages[edit]

I have a preference for articles to cover an entire civil parish or borough, and not just the town, as this one does. Therefore piped links like [[Corsham|Neston, Wiltshire]] link here. This was my reasoning for mentioning the surrounding villages and hamlets in bold in the lead section, so that readers not only get an early overview of the district, but are reassured that the article is relevant to the village they are researching. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take that point completely, but stylistically, every time I came to the page that block of bold in the lead stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Since the town itself is the centre of the parish, geographically and thematically, it makes sense to concentrate on it in the lead with maybe a mention of surrounding, smaller, settlements at the end of the lead with an expansive section later on. I had it in mind to do that, with a map and brief sections on each. That would suffice until each has its own article, but I will follow whatever guidelines and consensus establish. However, I think we are approaching WP:GA and I am working through the ToDo list. --Rodhullandemu 14:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article class[edit]

Now we have the infobox and an overview of the key features of the district, I think this is a B-Class article. I have changed the box above - but is it right for me to tag it myself (I did a little of the work) or is there a place to ask an outside editor to review and tag it?

A few more to the 'to do' list attempted, and it could go for Good Article review. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been greatly expanded [2], since the assessment of 2007 that demoted it to Start class. I have promoted it to B class again, and crossed many items off the to-do list. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Content has been added from an article that was merged and redirected following an WP:AfD consensus. Regular editors to Corsham may wish to review and copy edit the new content as necessary. See section: Education, and compare diffs for details. --Kudpung (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cosseham vs. Cosseha[edit]

In the history section it is stated that Corsham is mentioned in the Domesday book as Cosseham and further down that it is recorded as "''Cosseha'' in 1086". To me the latter seems to also refer to the Domesday book and to be a misreading not considering the 'hook' above the latter "a", s. the image on, which is to be interpreted as "m" here. is given as a source for the spellings ''Coseham'' and Cosseha. I find neither claim in the source.

And by the way: How do you pronounce Corsham? Cors-ham or Cor-sham (as in Melksham)? PhiRho~dewiki (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You would be entirely justified in removing the mentions of Cosseha and Coseham.
For the pronunciation, as a Wiltshire resident I've always heard Cor-shum (not a typo, the 'a' is spoken as 'u'). Likewise Melkshum and Chippnum (for Chippenham). -- Wire723 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So I did after searching around a bit without success for a source of the spelling "Coseham". PhiRho~dewiki (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]