Talk:Chideock

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.

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

unsourced statement[edit]

Any reason why I should not delete: "It is little known that some regard Bristol as a suburb of Chideock, for obscure and perhaps tenuous reasons. Research is ongoing as to the economic and cultural links between the village and the largest city in the southwest region." Brownturkey (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it - it was added on 31 May 2010 by an IP , who seems to have been making some POV points about village politics. I've removed some other claims as well. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statements were made by me, and yes I was making a point, BUT the issue being a suburb of Bristol relied on the claim of a prominent resident who claimed to be born and bred, even though hailing from Bristol and only being a recent retiree to village. If you want a debate conger1216@hotmail.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.26.125 (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Climate data[edit]

An unregistered editor keeps adding climate data to the article, but I have removed it because it isn't clear where the data has been gathered. The unregistered editor has provided a source for the data - http://www.myweather2.com - but I am yet to be convinced that that source can be considered reliable, and anyway it also very clearly states that "The climate profile is taken from closest available data source to North Chideock", which is not the same as stating the data was gathered actually in Chideock. It is quite likely the data was gathered at a weather station such as on the Isle of Portland or at Yeovilton in Somerset, and because of this I consider it misleading to the reader to present the info in the article as if it applied specifically to Chideock.
In addition, some of the text added by the unregistered editor was not supported by the source - for example, the claim that Chideock is one of the sunniest places in the UK. This statement may be correct, but it is not supported by the source. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chideock. 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/20130121174035/http://www.thisisdorset.co.uk/Light-end-tunnel-Dorset-road-campaign/story-12700984-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisdorset.co.uk/Light-end-tunnel-Dorset-road-campaign/story-12700984-detail/story.html

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) 12:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]