Jump to content

Talk:Portesham

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

Untitled

[edit]

Shouldn't the hardy stuff be at Blackdown if that's where the monument is? quercus robur 00:21, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Blackdown is not a village but the hill above Portesham. The Hardy stuff should be at Thomas Masterman Hardy and Hardy Monument. Joe D (t) 22:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Hardy connection is a notable thing about the village and merits a mention in this article, particularly as many guides do not mention Blackdown Hill, merely saying that Hardy was a Portesham man or that the monument is on a hill near, or overlooking, the village. I have also removed the Blackdown link from the previous post as it refers to a place in Warwickshire, some distance from the article village in Dorset. Britmax 13:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Description of village size

[edit]

An anonymous editor (or, perhaps, editors) has repeatedly changed the introductory description of Portesham from being a "village" to a "small village". The table below, compiled from data provided by Dorset County Council here, lists all the parishes within the West Dorset administrative district and ranks them according to the size of their populations. It illustrates why I believe the description of "small village" should be reverted, which I have done. Out of 138 parishes, Portesham is the 27th largest. If all parishes which are described as towns are removed, Portesham is the 21st largest out of 132. If Bradpole, Bothenhampton and Allington are also removed due to their being part of the built-up area of Bridport, Portesham parish has the 18th largest population out of 129 stand-alone villages and hamlets, placing it in the top 14%. Seeing as the description "small" only has value when used comparatively, it doesn't make sense to use it here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Rank Parish Population Current Wikipedia description
1 Dorchester 19,060 County town
2 Sherborne 9,523 Market town
3 Bridport 8,332 Market town
4 Chickerell 5,515 Town
5 Lyme Regis 3,671 Coastal town
6 Beaminster 3,136 Small town
7 Charminster 2,940 Village
8 Bradpole 2,339 Village
9 Crossways 2,267 Village
10 Bothenhampton 2,131 Village
11 Puddletown 1,405 Village
12 Broadwindsor 1,378 Village
13 Charmouth 1,352 Village
14 Netherbury 1,314 Village
15 Broadmayne 1,204 Village
16 Maiden Newton 1,119 Village
17 Yetminster 1,105 Village
18 Symondsbury 1,059 Village
19 Bradford Abbas 975 Village
20 Burton Bradstock 948 Village
21 Thornford 939 Village
22 Cerne Abbas 784 Village
23 Allington 766 Village
24 Winterborne St Martin 755 Village
25 Thorncombe 687 Village
26 Chideock 686 Village
27 Portesham 685
28 Whitchurch Canonicorum 684 Village
29 Osmington 673 Village
30 Piddletrenthide 647 Village
31 Buckland Newton 622 Village
32 Mosterton 604 Village
33 Stratton 592 Village
34 Halstock 546 Village
35 Frampton 524 Village
36 Loders 518 Village
37 Bincombe 514 Village or hamlet
38 Cattistock 509 Village
39 Abbotsbury 481 Large village
40 Leigh 480 Village
41 Longburton 470 Village
42 Owermoigne 467 Village
43 Puncknowle 466 Village
44 Tolpuddle 452 Small village
45 Corscombe 445 Village
46 Sydling St Nicholas 414 Village
47 Piddlehinton 403 Village
48 Bishop's Caundle 398 Small village
49 Shipton Gorge 381 Village
50 West Knighton 375 Village
51 Bradford Peverell 370 Village
52 Holwell 369 Village
53 South Perrott 367 Village
54 Litton Cheney 359 Village
55 Powerstock 358 Village
56 Winterbourne Abbas 355 Village
57 Marshwood 346 Village
58 Wootton Fitzpaine 345 Village
59 Chetnole 344 Village
60 Holnest 342 Village
61 Folke 339 Parish/hamlet
62= Evershot 334 Village
62= Stinsford 334 Village
64 Nether Compton 328 Village
65 Hilfield 324 Hamlet
66 Trent 317 Village
67 Toller Porcorum 307 Village
68 Winterbourne Steepleton 297 Village
69 Cheselbourne 296 Village
70 West Stafford 291 Village
71 Dewlish 284 Village
72 Langton Herring 240 Village
73 Stoke Abbott 238 Village
74 Tincleton 236 Village
75 Purse Caundle 221 Village
76 Long Bredy 208 Village
77 Melbury Osmond 199 Village
78 Wynford Eagle 186 Hamlet
79 Minterne Magna 184 Village
80 Over Compton 183 Village
81 Sandford Orcas 180 Village
82 Alton Pancras 175 Small village
83 Winterborne Herringston 174 (no article)
84 Frome St. Quintin 171 Village
85 Rampisham 163 Village
86 Warmwell 161 Hamlet
87 Hooke 157 Small village
88 Godmanstone 156 Village
89 Castleton 155 Civil parish
90 Askerswell 154 Small village
91 Frome Vauchurch 149 Parish / hamlet
92 Melcombe Horsey 141 Village
93 Poyntington 128 Village
94 Littlebredy 121 Small village
95 Burstock 120 Village
96 Ryme Intrinseca 115 Village
97 Swyre 102 Village
98 Oborne 101 Village
99-138 Athelhampton, Batcombe, Beer Hackett, Bettiscombe, Burleston, Catherston Leweston, Caundle Marsh, Chedington, Chilcombe, Chilfrome, Clifton Maybank, Compton Valence, East Chelborough, Fleet, Goathill, Haydon, Hermitage, Kingston Russell, Leweston, Lillington, Mapperton, Melbury Bubb, Melbury Sampford, Nether Cerne, North Poorton, North Wootton, Pilsdon, Poxwell, Seaborough, Stanton St. Gabriel, Stockwood, Toller Fratrum, Up Cerne, West Chelborough, West Compton, Whitcombe, Winterborne Came, Winterborne Monkton, Woodsford, Wraxall 100 or less (no data) These are the parishes with the smallest populations, currently described by Wikipedia as:
Village - 3
Small village - 7
Very small village - 1
Hamlet - 14
Other - 7
Redirect - 2
An excellent, thorough and clear analysis. I'm not really sure how it can be made any clearer that this village is not small !! Unless maybe Winterborne Herringston is a city. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Record of edits

[edit]
I had previously considered these IP edits to be the actions of a local resident who wasn't looking at the wider picture, hence my construction of the above table and my numerous attempts on the different IP talk pages to direct the editor to this page. A closer look at the article history however reveals something more disruptive. The first insertion of "small" was made by a registered editor on 25 July 2012 (here). An inspection of that editor's own talk page is illuminating, as is the edit they made here. Back to the history of this article, on 16 April 2013 an IP editor who geolocates to Calne in Wiltshire at first changed the 2001 Census population figure from 708 to 4 (see here), then almost immediately completely removed the whole sentence about the village's population (here). Subsequently a number of different IPs, geolocating to several towns in Wiltshire or Hampshire, have repeatedly inserted "small" and sometimes also removed the sourced sentence about the parish of Portesham being quite large:
  1. 5 May 2013: Diff IP geolocates to Winchester, Hampshire.
  2. 11 June 2013: Diff IP geolocates to Marlborough, Wiltshire.
  3. 13 June 2013: Diff and Diff IP geolocates to Winchester, Hampshire.
  4. 14 June 2013 Diff Same IP as for 13 June
  5. 20 June 2013 Diff IP geolocates to Marlborough, Wiltshire.
  6. 22 June 2013 Diff IP geolocates to Salisbury, Wiltshire. This edit also changed "West Dorset administrative district" to "South Dorset administrative district", which doesn't actually exist.
  7. 24 June 2013 Diff IP geolocates to Calne, Wiltshire.
  8. 6 July 2013 Diff IP geolocates to Salisbury, Wiltshire.
  9. 7 July 2013 Diff IP geolocates to Calne, Wiltshire.
  10. 14 July 2013 Diff IP geolocates to Calne, Wiltshire.
  11. 16 July 2013 Diff Same IP as for 14 July.
  12. 17 July 2013 Diff IP geolocates to Calne, Wiltshire.
  13. 20 July 2013 Diff Same IP as for 17 July.
  14. 23 July 2013 Diff Same IP as for 17 July.
  15. 2 August 2013 Diff IP geolocates to Calne, Wiltshire.
  16. 11 August 2013 Diff IP geolocates to Calne, Wiltshire.
  17. 14 August 2013 Diff Same IP as for 11 August.
  18. 15 August 2013 Diff Same IP as for 11 August.
  19. 15 August 2013 Diff Same IP as for 11 August.
  20. 22 August 2013 Diff IP geolocates to Calne, Wiltshire. Also delighted us with this edit.
  21. 22 February 2014 Diff IP geolocates to Calne, Wiltshire. Also seems to have made these recent contributions
Seeing as several of those IP edits geolocate to Calne, which is where those early vandalising edits geolocate to, I'm inclined now to view these edits as vandalism, particularly as the edit on 16 July was made after I'd posted a note on that IP's talk page, suggesting they discuss the issue here, which so far they have failed to do. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So looks like a simple range block will not work here? Maybe article protection is needed. And also looks like we have Wiltshire/Dorset gypsy who's also a keen wiki-vandal! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17 July 2013: Diff IP geolocates to Calne, Wiltshire. This edit was made on the BT network, not sure about all the others. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Well, the thing is that I feel that it would be a shame to semi-protect an article over something that the IP is doing in good faith (albeit annoyingly persistently). Y'all have a well-established case for your version, but this is, in a sense, a content issue, and admins aren't really supposed to use protection, blocking, etc. to decide content issues. That said, I'm not totally averse to protecting in this instance; it's a low-traffic article, and the signal-to-noise ratio is very low on IP edits, judging by the article history, so collateral damage should be at a minimum. How about this: we put up a big edit notice on the page for a week or two, inviting the IP to come to the talk page to discuss it. (You can look at the edit notice on my user page for the kind of thing I have in mind.) If we still get multiple edits like this, we can move on to temporary semi-protection (while keeping the edit notice). How does that sound? Writ Keeper  20:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very reasonable to me. Without ever seeming any kind of edit summary or talk thread in defence of these edits, it seems to border on vandalism to me. If anything good has come of this it is the very useful table above constructed by PCW. He has put a lot of effort not defending this "small" article. I'd be very interested to see any kind of argument and/or sources from the IP. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems worth a try, even if it will make the article look a bit odd for a while. (Maybe the IP has tried to post here but hasn't worked out how to do it; maybe they're waiting for the introduction of "Flow" before they indulge in these baffling Wikipedia shenanigans, which we call talk pages....) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the IP added "small" again this morning, having one minute earlier made this edit to an article about a nearby settlement. This can only be seen as disruptive vandalism, and I now favour some kind of page protection. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems he or she has no sources or arguments to offer and yes, it's just mindless vandalism. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in which case reverting them is acceptable, albeit a little bit tedious. If the editor persists, perhaps making another request for page protection is the way to go? Either that or just report them as a vandal and/or disruptive editor? (although of course they use various different IP addresses, which complicates that approach) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfamiliar with the murky back-streets of the great metropolis, so I fear unilateral vigilante action is out of the question, even from the safety of my Bournemouth taxi. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

316 households and 342 dwellings?

[edit]

Not sure what this means. Some households had more than one dwelling? Some dwelling were empty? Something else? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]