Talk:Little Thetford/Archive 1

Little Thetford
Little Thetford

I am the significant editor of what was a geographic stub. I have offline assistance form local historians. I would appreciate feedback (before I call for peer review) on the whole article. Some of my rationale and ongoing thoughts have been recorded in Talk:Little_Thetford. Some of my current concerns are This is my first significant wikipedia article, so, er, be gentle with me if you can. I know CTRL-A; DEL exists but it would be nice if you did not use it without justification!
 * 1) getting advice on citations - convert to less ephemeral sources if practical. Too many citations? Should I remove all citations from the lead?
 * 2) As the main contributor, I have attempted to ensure that all facts are verifiable. The article probably has too many as it stands. Could someone help please
 * 3) too many wikilinks?
 * 4) Need a Casweb (academic access) to access the 1981 and 1991 census data via http://cdu.mimas.ac.uk/index.htm. I do not have such access DONE--Senra (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) I used embedded convert templates e.g. convert 1311 acres to display 2.0 square miles (5.2 km2). I did this as the source material all shows acre units. I chose to use sqmi/km2 within the article for consistency. Hopefully, using embedded converts in this way allows other editors to check sources easier. Is this sensible or over-cautious?
 * 6) Local historian has handed me the results of a recent newspaper article search (manual, not online) about a 1941 straffing of the village. Is such text appropriate and how much of it can I quote verbatim?

--Senra (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's good, but you will need to clean it up a bit and add it to categories. The overall visual appeal is not very good - try clicking on the quality standards link in the tag for some suggestions on how to improve that. However, I don't think it's in any danger of being deleted. Good job!
 * ~  Qwerp  Qwertus    · _Talk_ · _Contribs_ · The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award  00:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding academic access, check out WP:MHL-- SPhilbrick  T  00:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This may also be helpful Category:Wikipedians_by_access_to_a_digital_library-- SPhilbrick  T  00:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I more than appreciate the time anyone has taken to reply to this RFI. I am however still frustrated. Perhaps because I am new. Perhaps because there are too many help documents to read. Perhaps it is just me. I have made loads of changes since posting this RFI yet the cleanup graphic at the top of the article is still there. I have carefully read through Wikipedia:UKCITIES; Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style and applied what I could. I am sorry if this sounds ungrateful. Truly I am not ungrateful at all. Just frustrated at myself.


 * Please explain the three actions in this quote "...but you will need to [1] clean it up a bit and [2] add it to categories. The overall [3] visual appeal is not very good...".
 * [1] Clean the article code or the article as it appears to readers? What does clean mean? Remove superscript "th" for example? (I have removed them throughout)
 * [2] What does add it to categories mean? It was in categorgories when I wrote this RFI. I have compared the article to other similar articles and I cannot see how I can reasonably add it to more categories.
 * [3] What does visual appeal mean? I guess this is subjective. I also guess that experience would help me here. However, I cannot see how I can make it more visually appealing. I have removed the excess of references in the lead and the excess of subsections in some sections. I am not a journalist by profession. I have however done my best to correct words and phrases to make it as readable as possible. I know some sections are light on prose. The subject is a 2 sq mi village. Not much has happened here.


 * Also, I checked out the links and do not believe they are suitable. JSTOR is US not UK. Is there some kind of flag (or template or category) I can put in a page to attract someone to fix it? I looked but could not find such a flag. For example CENSUS DATA MISSING. DONE--Senra (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again. I am not ungrateful. Just frustrated at myself.
 * --Senra (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I liked the article and it looks like a nice place! My advice would be to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements and have a look at other articles about settlements to get some ideas about what you can add to yours. See if there are any villages close by that have had articles written about them, identify the editors, then ask them for feedback and/or if they are able to contribute to your article. Local history societies and libraries are great places to get both information and references. You might be surprised at what has happened there! :) Hope that helps--Ykraps (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't answer any of your questions. I don't know what QwertyQwerpus means by cleaning the article up but it could possibly be that there are too many wikilinks. I personally don't think it's necessary to link everything, particularly common nouns such as 'railway' or 'settlement'. If your readers don't understand those words they are going to struggle with the rest of the article. Also you have (correctly in my opinion) linked to the Domesday book but doing it once is sufficient you don't need to do it the next time you mention it. I see know reason why you can't use the newspaper article just remember to reference it properly (name of the paper, date of issue, page and column number). Even though the article is over 50 years old, it is best to use your own words to describe what took place. Finally, I don't believe you can have too many references!--Ykraps (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Thank you for all the comments. I appreciate them all. As an aside, I would like to preserve this useful information. Would it be proper to copy it to the article talk page and transclude it to here from there? Or do I simply archive it to the talk page and leave it at that?--Senra (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Aims

 * Short term: To get Little Thetford out of stub status.  --Senra (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Medium term: To get Little Thetford to GA status. --Senra (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Long term:  To get Little Thetford to FA status.

To-do-list
* Add transport section ✅--Senra (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Research and if appropriate add notable persons section
 * Alan Turing may have run past Little Thetford whilst he was a Fellow at King's.
 * Clement Freud was MP for Ely when British Rail demolished the signal box at Little Thetford and wanted to replace it with a auto-barriers. A village campaign led to the barriers being manual controlled.


 * --Senra (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Expand information of each notable building giving build dates and some history if available. still more work to do --Senra (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done --Senra (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

--Senra (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * re-word 2nd paragraph of St. Georges Church as it is currently a copy-paste entry ✅--Senra (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * get advice on citations - convert to less ephemeral sources if practical
 * consider reducing size of in-line images or converting them to gallery. A gallery was considered but rejected on the basis that there should be enough prose on each notable building. However, continue to review this. ✅After much thought, converted inline images to gallery.--Senra (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Converted back to in-line per per-review --Senra (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Community facilities is is in the wrong place. However when I move it to the correct place, the infobox destroys the look of the sections governance, geography, and demography. Still thinking how to correct this --Senra (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)✅ Added more prose to Geography fixing this issue although I have not check this on a 16:9 monitor. The probelm was that the template was interfering with the infobox. It no longer does that on my 1280x1024 monitor.--Senra (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Need advice on citations. As the main contributor, I have attempted to ensure that all facts are verifiable. The article probably has too many as it stands. Could someone help please .--Senra (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Passed GA so I guess there were not too many cites so --Senra (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

* Need a Casweb (academic access) to access the 1981 and 1991 census data via http://cdu.mimas.ac.uk/index.htm. I do not have such access. --Senra (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC) ✅ Used local library :) --Senra (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I used embedded convert templates e.g. convert 1311 acres to display 1311 acre sqmi. I did this as the source material all shows acre units. I chose to use sqmi/km2 within the article for consistency. Hopefully, using embedded converts in this way allows other editors to check sources easier.--Senra (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Been through copy edit via Malleus Fatuorum so --Senra (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * add Turing trail as this commemorative run passes Little Thetford Chapel Hill on its southbound track and the site of the Seven Stars public house on the northbound track. Probably community facilities section. --Senra (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Consider this as trivia? --Senra (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Enclosure in lead is too wordy. Move explanation of word enclosure/inclosure to History section and leave brief note in lead . --Senra (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)--Senra (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to history leaving teaser in lead --Senra (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Economy. Add more prose. --Senra (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rise and fall of pubs in this village, with closure dates if available, in context of UK licensing laws—e.g. site of Seven Stars public house on eastern bank of Ouse opposite site of old-ferry.
 * Number and types of shops and their closure dates and reasons, if available—e.g. supermarkets
 * Economy in an historical context such as fishing, then pastoral and later, as the land was drained, arable farming. Not sure if this belongs in history section . --81.147.89.24 (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Prose written --Senra (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Inter-village/town trading being archaeologically discovered in the nearby area such as coprolite mining and sugar beet. Anecdotal evidence of trading as far as Cornwall in middle-ages at least. Very weak knowledge here. Need more research. Fairs were certainly held in the village. See note on 1851 census.
 * --Senra (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Feoffees Almshouse - Need to research this (see review) --Senra (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Geography - Boundaries section is weak - Seems contrived to me (the author) so needs work --Senra (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * --Senra (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Drainage and the Fens - more prose (see review) --Senra (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fix Pugh references. Specifically, at time of writing, ref 2 and 9 are same but for different pages. Combine using referenced notes . --Senra (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed --Senra (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * From 1894 to 1974 it was part of Ely Rural District - need to research this or just get some prose together. Boundary or governance section . --Senra (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Added to governance section --Senra (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Continue to review lead section to ensure key article topics are mentioned here --Senra (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead passed GA so but will continue to monitor it anyway so for now --Senra (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Public service - No Natural gas in the village? When did street lights come to the village? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senra (talk • contribs) 12:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently, no gas ever in village (to this day) and electricity and thus street lights came in 1953 Word of mouth. Trying to gather evidence. --Senra (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Tornado's have been seen in the village. -- (removed until I can talk Roger into uploading his photo to wikimedia commons)
 * Life is good! Emailed photographer (who lives in village) and he kindly uploaded the photo to wikimedia so --Senra (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Work-in-progress

 * Archeological evidence of iron-age settlement – awaiting release from village elders before publication here --Senra (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Visit to library today resulted in gaining more knowledge of this research. May be able to publish ahead of village elders as I managed to dig up (dig up? Get it?) some references to some archealogical work done before Watsons Lane development. Perhaps even Neolithic but certainly iron-age. Watch this space. --Senra (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Added Neolithic prose so --Senra (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Petty, M quote in history section—researching King and Queen visit reference --Senra (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Newspaper article found referring to King and Queen visit to R.A.F. hospital on Saturday 18 January 1941. Same page is the following: "Raider machine guns village. Man escapes death by seconds. A quiet little East Anglian village was machine-gunned one afternoon this week by a low-flying German 'plane. ..."


 * Something does not quite add up here. Need to research M Petty quote further.--Senra (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed but not happy with this now. No date of attack (due censorship) makes this a weaker story. Mike tells me that sometime in 1944-5 the newspaper published a long list of all attacks in previous years giving dates and places. Heavy research which will have to wait. In the meantime, this is done. --Senra (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hidden comment in main text moved here: "Please note newspapers were censored at the time and do not show the dates nor places of such attacks. The newspaper reports the event. The son of the farmer recalled the event to Mike Petty." --Senra (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I think Thetford, Cambridgeshire should be merged with this article as they seem to be about the same place, with a Redirect left in its place.&mdash; Rod talk 10:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The separate article came about as a consequence of a discussion here. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge - Seriously, within 24 hours of creation proposing a merger? At least give the article a chance to develop! Separate articles for civil parishes seem to be reasonably common. Jeni  ( talk ) 20:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not aware it was within 24 hrs of creation, however the article says "The village of Little Thetford is coterminus with the parish", therefore they are about the same topic. The separate articles I am aware of are where one parish may contain several villages & therefore they may need separate articles. I am contributing to the peer review at Peer review/Little Thetford/archive1 (which is coming on really well) and came across this stub. I can not see any reason for having two articles about the same place.&mdash; Rod talk 20:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support merge, as per Rodw. The first paragraph of the Governance section gives the game away: "Little Thetford is a civil parish in the ward of Stretham ...", and the lead says "Little Thetford ... is a small picturesque Bronze Age village ...". Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support merge, due coterminus. However, we need to resolve the following.
 * Thetford is the civil parish name of Little Thetford
 * Readers looking for Thetford, Cambridgeshire and is variants need to be handled
 * List of civil parishes in Cambridgeshire needs to be handled or fixed
 * Chesterton (UK Parliament constituency) needs to be handled or fixed

--Senra (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we bring this to a close? If agreed, would someone help with the three points above please? --Senra (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the merger proposal tags and redirected Thetford, Cambridgeshire to this article. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated. Thank you. --Senra (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * {{Infobox UK City | civil_parish = Thetford, Cambridgeshire now redirects to Little Thetford{{mdash}}i.e. itself. Is this sensible? The first sentence of the Governance section of Little Thetford immediately qualifies to the reader that Little Thetford is coterminus with the civil parish of Thetford... Should this parameter be
 * Left as it is?
 * Changed to Thetford, Cambridgeshire ?
 * The redirect changed to Thetford, Cambridgeshire#Governance?
 * --Senra (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I vote for "left as it is". Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Governance
Original text below replaced by text provided by Rod talk
 * At the UK Government level, there were 650 constituencies at the 2010 general election. Each consituency elects one member of parliament from its Boundary Commission allocated wards. Little Thetford is in the ward of Stretham, which is in the constituency of South East Cambridgeshire.


 * At the European level, Little Thetford, or more acurately Stretham-ward, is in the East of England constituency of the European Parliament, which elects 7 MEP's.

--Senra (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A photographic history
Would historical photographs enhance this article instead of, or as well as, using contemporary ones? Consider: The above photos are all available at the Cambridgeshire Collection. Not sure if we should ditch the contemporary photos or bang them in a gallery at the end. Looking around wikipedia, styles vary. Ely, Cambridgeshire 3 miles away for example, has a gallery. Comments welcome.
 * Bronze age causeway replacing Baptist church
 * Engraving of Roundhouse replacing Roundhouse
 * Three Horseshoes 1906 replacing Horseshoes, 17th century
 * Historical photographs. This is progressing. Now waiting for a villager to upload the images to wikimedia tagged appropriately. --Senra (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Different images than above. Still trying to get causeway image p copyright issues at minute so fro now --Senra (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

We were also considering mentioning the floods of 1909, 1947 with a photo of someone cycling along the flooded fens in Little Thetford. (I need to find a hobby! This article is taking over my life!) --Senra (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1919 and 1947 floods. This will go in the article in the history section. Research under way.

--Senra (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Guardian
 * Risk Management Solutions report
 * --Senra (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The path to GA
Those who helped get this article to GA. The above list may not stand the test of time as links might get archived. There were others who helped along the way. For example administrators monitoring which I used a couple of times. I hope I have not missed anyone important. Slap me if I have. Thank you too goes to a few people in Little Thetford itself who spotted that this exercise was in progress almost from day-one and have been supportive with encouragement and useful information. Thank you to the local historian, Mike Petty, who provided information and support too. Thank you everyone. --Senra (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Little Thetford 28-02-2010
 * Senra (talk | contribs) started editing 30-05-2010
 * Jeni (talk | contribs) removed Copyvio's 03-06-2010
 * Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) very supportive when it was needed 09-06-2010
 * Submitted for Peer review 09-06-2010 by Senra (talk | contribs)
 * Reviewed by Rodw (talk | contribs) from 11-06-2010—15-06-2010
 * Copy-edited by Malleus (Fatuorum | contribs) from 13-06-2010—17-06-2010
 * GAN submitted 16-06-2010 by Senra (talk | contribs)
 * WP:GAN review commenced 20-06-2010 by Pyrotec (talk | contribs)
 * Review complete and GA awarded 22-06-2010
 * Little Thetford 22-06-2010
 * Submitted for peer-review 1 July 2010
 * Peer review commenced 6 July 2010 by
 * Peer review closed by 8 July 2010
 * Little Thetford 8 July 2010
 * Submitted for WP:FAC 8 July 2010 by


 * I think this is an interesting way of recording the progress & thanking people, which I haven't seen before & I like. Now about your next aim - FA status......&mdash; Rod talk 20:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just my way of documenting activity in the same way as Aims, To-do-list, Work-in-progress. It helps me stay focussed. Plus, in this case, I know I can go to one place to find a list of people that might help again if needed.


 * Yes it is true my thoughts are looking towards FAC. I have spent the evening trawling through the featured article criteria, and all of its see-also and advice-from-wikipedians links. It led me to make a global change (two occurrences) to the article, replacing "$" with "US$" and "£" with "GBP". I found nothing else. I am too close to the article to see anything more. I was therefore thinking of recruiting another reviewer to prepare for FA. Anyway, no rush. Any advice on the next steps would be welcome. Seems like I have enough on my plate at the minute anyway. Yes I know I do not have to do them all. Some of the suggestions are so interesting! Previous unsigned comments added by  on 22 June 2010 --Senra (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Renewable energy in cambridgshire
In the energy sub-section The article currently states "The Distribution Network Operator for electricity is EDF Energy. The largest straw burning power station in the world is at nearby Sutton. This renewable energy resource power station rated at 36.85 MW from burning Biomass, nearly 25 percent of the total renewable energy reported for Cambridgeshire in 2009.[65] The worlds largest poultry litter power plant, 38.5 MW, at Thetford, refers to the other Thetford in Norfolk."

I wrote to |Renewables Energy East who replied "The latest report December 09 is the seventh down the list here: Reports I think that Table 1 is the only table that may be of use to you, and perhaps a glance at section 9. As you are dealing with one particular power station I would avoid trying to estimate output and relate to consumption- just compare installed capacity figures across the renewables sector. Actual output will be commercially confidential anyway. As I indicated, to relate the installed capacity of one power station to the total of all power stations (renewables and non-renewables) across an area introduces the huge distortions of the big nuclear and coal fired power stations whose contribution needs to be seen as a national one rather than being related to a relatively small geographical area.

Planning Advisor Renewables East"

Need to look into the documents provided and create some prose. My intention was to try and relate the renewable energy stations in the area to total consumption but it is going to be more difficult than I first imagined so this will have to wait for now stet --Senra (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

John Townsend charity
(Moved from work-in-progress)
 * John Townsend Charity - email went to charity 11-June-2010 asking for historical information. Awaiting response. --Senra (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Heard from trustee of charity today who promised to dig up some citable history within next few weeks. In the meantime, she has seen this article and approves of wording. --Senra (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ODNB has two possibly relevant John Townsends.
 * "Townsend, John (1757–1826), benefactor, was born in Whitechapel, London, on 24 March 1757, the son of Benjamin and Margaret Townsend. His father, a pewterer, was disinherited for his attachment to the Calvinistic Methodist leader George Whitefield and, as a result, the family lived a ‘humble life’  (Congregational Magazine, 226)"


 * "Townshend, Sir John (1567/8–1603), landowner and local politician, was the elder son of Sir Roger Townshend (c.1544–1590), courtier, and his second wife, Jane (c.1547–1618), the eldest daughter of Sir Michael Stanhope of Shelford, Nottinghamshire. In childhood Sir Roger had inherited a house in Stoke Newington, Middlesex; property and land in Suffolk, Oxfordshire, Middlesex, and Essex; and twenty manors around Raynham, Norfolk, acquired by the family at the dissolution of the monasteries."


 * so which one is our John Townsend? Anyone know? --Senra (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * New information just came in today. Martha Digby [d. 1715] was a benefactor to Stretham and related in some way to John Townsend --Senra (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

More on ownership
There seems to be quite a lot of speculation that Philip de Tilney, MP for Lincolnshire, may have owned the manor in the late fourteenth century, inherited through his wife, who was of the Baynard/Bainard family (see e.g. ). This does contradict the VCH's assertion that the manor remained in the possession of the diocese. Warofdreams talk 11:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * the overall picture that is forming in my mind is that the fisheries of Little Thetford were clearly bequeathed to the Abbey in 1007 by Ælfwaru in a will that was documented in the 12th century. How she came to hold the fisheries is not clear. We can speculate that they were acquired proir to 1007 under conflict by the Anglo-Saxons from the local peasants. Anyway, the Domesday book of 1086 records the fisheries as belonging to the Abbey. Perhaps over the following half-century, the lands (which were now farms and orchards) were given by grace and favour to various people by the Abbey, knowing full well (or even stipulating?) that the lands would return back to the Abbey on the recipients death. --Senra (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

William Sole
Incidentally, having a quick search for notable people from Little Thetford, I've found William Sole - no Wikipedia article yet, but several pages linking to it. His ODNB article states he was from Thetford in Norfolk but earlier sources, such as this or even earlier editions of the ODNB make it clear that it was Thetford in the Isle of Ely. Warofdreams talk 11:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC) --Senra (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this. I sent an email to King's this afternoon asking if these conflicting entries can be clarified --Senra (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We found a John SOLE baptised 1741 June 14 in the St. George's church parish records this afternoon. --Senra (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sent and email to ODNB who are looking into the conflicting entries. Recorded here for the record:
 * Dear ODNB


 * As discussed on the telephone, we have found conflicting entries for Sole, William (1741–1802) between G. S. Boulger, ‘Sole, William (1741–1802)’, rev. Anita McConnell, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 accessed  28 June 2010 which states in part: "Sole, William (1741–1802), apothecary and botanist, was born at Thetford, Norfolk, the eldest son of John Sole and his wife, Martha, ..." and The Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, volume 53, which again, in part states "SOLE, WILLIAM (1741–1802), botanist, born at Thetford in the Isle of Ely in 1741, was the eldest son of John Sole by his wife Martha, ...".


 * A villager kindly went through the Little Thetford St. George's church parish records this afternoon. He discovered the baptism of John SOLE on 14 June 1741. The record states:


 * 1741 June 14 SOLE               John of John & Martha


 * There were no SOLE's recorded from 1731 until 1741 June 14 but there were SOLE's after this date as follows


 * 1743 May 15 SOLE                Sarah of John and Martha
 * 1744 Feb 24 SOLE                 Elizabeth of John and Martha
 * 1748 Feb 19 SOLE                 Francis of John and Martha
 * 1750 May 13 SOLE                Robert of John and Martha
 * 1752 Oct 3 SOLE                   Martha of John and Martha


 * then no entries up to 1785.


 * This suggests to me that William SOLE was baptised John SOLE on 1741 June 14 and was highly likely to have been born in Little Thetford, Cambridgeshire, not Thetford Norfolk. --Senra (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. This family history website states that Francis was the younger brother of William, although it's not clear what evidence they have for this.  Given that John and Martha were the names of William's parents, it seems that you must be correct. Warofdreams talk 15:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not a biographer (nor an historian, archaeologist, geographer, climatologist, agronomist, demographer, economist, architect, scholar, political commentator, nor anything really) but I feel an article about William SOLE of Little Thetford needs writing. You fancy having a crack at it Warofdreams? If not, I may give it a go myself but not for a week or so. --Senra (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've written a brief biography using the information from the ODNB; there seems very little additional information out there, but please take a look and improve it, if possible. Warofdreams talk 12:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged and thank you for this. William is the Sole notable person in Little Thetford at the moment --Senra (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image
Just a thought, but would the aerial photo of Thetford be more representative of the whole village than a photo of a roundhouse? Nev1 (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good thinking. Not sure. Let me sleep on this. The roundhouse is, erm, famous locally. The aerial view sits well at the top of the history section as the caption (as it stands) helps the reader during the early part of the history. As I say, let me sleep on it. --Senra (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Segments queried as a result of FAC
Queries by 04:00 15/7/10

Mike Petty quote

 * "In 2010, the local historian, Mike Petty, commented: It is a good job the attack did not happen on the 18 January 1941: otherwise it could have changed the course of British history. The King and Queen of England travelled [past the village] up the A10 by car to open the R.A.F. hospital [in Ely] that day." There is a citation provided. However, when you look at it, the cite is to "Their Majesties Visit R.A.F. Hospital". The Cambridgeshire Times (Archant, Herts and Cambs): p. 5. 24 January 1941. Thus, there is actually no citation for the Petty comment, and thus no citation for the idea that the attack could have changed the course of British history.
 * Pulled "In 2010, the local historian, Mike Petty, commented:..." and preceding two sentences as fair comment. The two stories are true; the comment by a respected historian is ture as transcribed (aside from copyedit changes by others since I first put the quote into the article); the story and quote actually came from a talk Mike Petty, gave at the local Ely library. I have since found the two stories in the newspaper archives. Nevertheless, there is indeed "...no citation for the idea that the attack could have changed the course of British history." and thus pulled:--Senra (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A Luftwaffe plane overflew the village in mid-January 1941, firing at haystacks and houses. No one was hurt in the attack, though one tracer bullet narrowly missed a guest at Home Farm. In 2010, the local historian, Mike Petty, commented:"It is a good job the attack did not happen on the 18 January 1941: otherwise it could have changed the course of British history. The King and Queen of England travelled [past the village] up the A10 by car to open the R.A.F. hospital [in Ely] that day."

Thetford re Little Thetford

 * "Thetford seems to be the preferred administrative name used for the village, which is easily confused with Thetford in Norfolk, therefore the local newspapers have used the name Thetford-in-the-Isle (1822)." (I have since slightly copyedited this sentence, but that is not relevant here) A citation is provided for this sentence, the work being called "Transcript of stories from the Ely Chronicle", which sounds like a contemporary book, perhaps prepared by a historian, transcribing old news stories. But there is no contemporary publication date provided. Leaving that aside, this appears to refer to a single newspaper article in 1822, which hardly seems to substantiate the claim of the sentence.
 * Not sure what to do here. I provided one reference but there are multiple examples. E.g. reference 1 Vision of Britain; the cited reference is not to a single article, it was to the whole book which, when thetford is mentioned, it is Thetford-in-the-isle; VCH; local knowledge. Pulled contentious statement copied into here: --Senra (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

, so the local newspapers have used the name Thetford-in-the-Isle (1822).

Enclosure

 * Not sure whether other editors have a view about the use of an 1833 county newspaper as the source for a description of events in 1833 (not as a quote, but as the only source for the facts in WP): "Officials arrived in the village armed with nothing more than a notice to be pinned on the Church of England's St. George's church door. They were prevented from doing so by a dozen villagers. The officials returned later with ten constables, authorised by Ely magistrates. This time, the officials were confronted by 150 stick-wielding protesters, who continued to prevent due process. When the clergyman, Henry Harvey Barber, arrived the following afternoon, he was prevented from carrying out his normal Sunday service." I would also comment that some of this sounds like an actual quote, and should be presented as such.

stet --Senra (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dewsbury source

 * I don't think this could possibly be a reliable source: Martin, Andrew (1998–2008). "The Family Tree:Dewsbury of Little Thetford". http://www.familytreeuk.co.uk/Dewsbury/index.html.
 * agreed pulled --Senra (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

, was run by one family for many years.

Cratendune at Little Thetford

 * I have carefully read the reference provided for the following: "An early Anglo-Saxon  cemetery, 410–1065 AD, uncovered in 1947 near Little Thetford, was thought to be this lost village of Cratendune", and would respectfully suggest that the source (1) does not give those dates for the cemetery but for the deserted settlement (2) questions whether or not the cemetery is related to the deserted settlement (3) does not mention 1947 as a date of discovery and (4) makes no mention of Little Thetford as a proximate location. This won't do.


 * changed to: "An early Anglo-Saxon cemetry, 410–1065 AD, uncovered around 1945 near Little Thetford (52.376N, 0.2375E), was thought to be this lost village of Cratendune." Fowler (1946–1947) pp. 70–71(1953) Cambridgeshire Historic Environment Record Cratendune

Last public house

 * Not sure what others think about the issue, but there is no reference for the following: "The last public house in Little Thetford was the Fish and Duck, situated along the river nearer Stretham. It closed in 2005 and has since been demolished."
 * changed to "The last public house in Little Thetford was the Fish and Duck, situated along the river nearer Stretham. It closed soon after January 2003 and has since been demolished." --Senra (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * vhanged again to "There was a public house at Little Thetford, the Fish and Duck, situated along the river nearer Stretham;[81] it closed sometime during 2006, and the owning company dissolved on 11 May 2010. There is a combined newsagent, post office, and grocery store in Stretham, 2 miles (3.2 km) south of the village." --Senra (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Post office

 * And the sentence thereafter states "There is a combined newsagent, post office, and grocery store in Stretham, 2 miles (3.2 km) south of the village". However, the reference for this is the generic branch finder search engine for the Post Office - and when I typed in "Little Thetford", the answer I got was not the one given in the WP article. Again, i don't think this is OK, unless the view is that 'common knowledge' should apply (i would sympathise with this and remove the citation). Note a 'common knowledge' approach can't be applied to the previous sentence about a building which is no longer there.


 * changed reference only to:

Proposal to replace new roundhouse image with older image
There are two properly licensed images of the roundhouse as shown. It is proposed to replace the 2006 image with the 1906 image at the same place in the article. Comments on this proposal would be welcome. --Senra (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * write support if you support the proposal that the 1906 image should replace the 2006 image in the article
 * write oppose if you oppose the proposal and wish the 2006 image to remain in the article


 * Support The 1906 image is of more historic value. Although it is lower definition and (obviously) not as colourful, it shows the roundhouse before what looks like 20th-century alterations (ie: the windows) that are visible in the 2006 photo. Although this edit may solve the problem? Nev1 (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been resolved by Nev1's edit.&mdash; Rod talk 19:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not me, the idea belongs to . Nev1 (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but whoever is I have to revert your change. The article is at FAC and one of the comments was not to have two images of the same building in the article (even though I like the multiple images myself) --Senra (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully request that puts the original image back, then stops re-instating the multiple image, until there is a concensus. If  still wishes to keep the multiple image, then please explain yourself here --Senra (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

oppose The one non-constructive behaviour above aside, I find all the above comments reasonable. Ruhrfisch "I assume most of the buildings in Little Thetford have changed greatly over time" - you may be interested in an animation of Main Street building changes. I am leaning towards oppose now myself. The article is not about this building; although the multiple image version is neat, it is not right for this article; the newest version of the image balances the old images of the village in the article taken as a whole. --Senra (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My reasoning is as follows: Little Thetford is a village with a rich history. It is desirable to illustrate that history. Were there no photographs other than contemporary photographs, it would add tot he richness of the article to have a photograph from a century ago. However, there are two photographs from that period of time, used to illustrate what the main street and the ferry looked like in 1905 and 1906. Adding another photograph from 1906 is not prohibited by this logic, but the photograph ought to be used for a historical context.
 * The Round House is definitely historical, dating from the 15th century. But the interest in this building is the 15th, not the 20th century. Obviously no photographs from that time, but if there were an architects sketch, or even an artists sketch that was close to contemporary, the historic value would trump the presumably lower image quality. However, we don't have an image that is contemporary or even close. From the point of view of a 15th century structure, a photograph in 1906 and 2006 are roughly the same point in time, which leads to preferring the one with better composition and color.
 * It is noted that the older photograph shows the building before some minor changes to the window. Had these been major structural changes, part of the history of the structure, there might be some value in showing the older version. However, the article makes no note of substantive changes between 1906 and 2006, so the minor difference in windows isn't even notable.
 * For these reasons, I prefer the 2006 version.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (WP:OR alert) The changes to the windows appear to be quite significant. The coursing visible in the photo from 2006 marking a blocked window looks, from a distance, to be 20th century. It appears that the windows were moved, which is a fairly significant change to a small building. Also, I doubt the ground floor windows would have gone from the floor to above head height as they currently do but is not seen in the 1906 image. Nev1 (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All good points. Just to add to this. There is a sketch available here. Also, the changes are significant. The old 1906 image shows the cottage as a semi-detached house. I.e. two cottages in one. In 1906 it was also three storeys high. In 2006 it is a detached house and two storeys high. --Senra (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Who knows what the Round House looked like in the 15th century? Perhaps more like the 1906 picture than the later one, perhaps not, but does it really matter? Why not use the better quality picture? Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Use both and add more history I read the source used for the Roundhouse and I think a bit more on its history could be added to the article, and both images used. I tweaked the multiple image here so the two images are the same height, which I think looks better. I ma not sure if the history added could just be in the caption, or not. Perhaps something like "The roundhouse in 1906 (left), when it was divided into two three-storey units, and in 2006 (right), when it was rethatched and converted into a single two-storey dwelling." Not sure if the attached post office visible at right in the 1906 image and demolished in the 1950s should be mentioned or not. The two photos show these changes, so why not use both? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the changes are more significant than I originally realized, but so what? Are the changes notable? The building is notable, but are the architectural changes in the last century notable? This sounds like a classic example of decision by committee - we have two photos so let's gin up an excuse to use both. I could be happy with either photo, but the justification for using both is weak and contrived.
 * How does it add to the encyclopedia to explain why we show changes in this building but no other building. Is this the only building that changed since original construction? I doubt it. Is the change in the building architecturally or historically interesting? No. We are doing it because we have both and we dreamed up an excuse to use both. If I saw this in most articles, I'd shrug and move on, let the editor's judgment prevail, but this is an FA. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.-- SPhilbrick  T  22:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Round House no doubt changed a great deal in the 500 years before 1906. That pictures only became available in 1906 is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a picture book. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume most of the buildings in Little Thetford have changed greatly over time - this is one structures where there are photos and a WP:RS for changes in the last 100 years. If there is not a general ref on such changes, I thought a specific example might be useful. I assume most readers would be able to infer that if this one historic structure has changed this much in a century, then it is likely that all of the historic buildings have also undergone great changes. If only one photo is used, I prefer the color shot as it is a better photo (color, shows the whole building). Your Mileage May Vary, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment (and rationale for a revert)I'm puzzled at the current state of affairs. I'm not as close to this article as some; I hope my detachment is a plus, but if that detachment means I've missed important details, I trust someone will correct me.
 * My understanding is that the original question was which of two images was most suitable for this article. Of course, it would be presumptuous to conclude that no other options could be considered, and a plausible third option was added to the mix—why not use both?
 * The original question was asked on the 16th and it is barely a day later, so short of unanimous concurrence from a large number of editors, I view the question as not yet resolved. However, what puzzles me is that I would normally expect in a case such as this, where the community is being asked to consider a number of options, that the article should remain in the pre-question state (with respect to this image) while the discussion is occurring. I'm not going to attempt to do a summary count at this time, as I think it is premature to declare the issue resolved, but I see only one statement of support for the dual image options. Even if I have misread, again, I think this talk page is the right place to view the options, and the article should retain the image last in place before the question arose. (This conclusion is not completely generic—in another situation, for example, if the question at hand was promoted by copyright concerns then it might be prudent to take down the image until consensus is reached).
 * I'm also aware that this article is the subject of a FAC. While the input of all editors is welcome, those with substantial experience reviewing FACs have particular experience with what makes an article top notch, so I hope we will take their counsel seriously.
 * It is my view that:


 * It is premature to conclude that the proposal to change (either to the 1906 picture of a dual image option)
 * In the absence of a clear consensus to change, and at least some views in support of the original image, I suggest that the WP:BRD cycle is at the discussion stage, but with the current state of the article using one of the proposed changes, not the reverted state.
 * The article should revert to the 2006 image until a clear consensus is reached for a change
 * I plan to make that change—if I'm missing something important, please point it out.-- SPhilbrick  T  22:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper articles

 * I've searched some old newspapers, and have found mention of the church being badly damaged by a lightning strike in 1886 (which I have added). I've also found details of two fatalities at the old railway crossing: a five-year-old in early 1881, and a man hit during fog in October 1884; there was also a very serious injury to a labourer there in June that year.  Not sure whether these are significant enough to mention, but they are the most interesting stories about the village. Warofdreams talk 20:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)