Talk:Meopham

Merging Harvel
I don't see it is necessary- it is only a matter of time before it is expanded. The disadvantage is losing its index- and it is a rather uniqur place. ClemRutter 09:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE. I agree with ClemRutter. This village has its own identity and is entitled to its own article, which can (and likely will) be expanded. Culverstone Green, another village in Meopham is similar. Typically, villages have their own Wikipedia articles. See, for example, the Monroe County, New York article, in which each of its 10 villages (Brockport | Churchville | East Rochester | Fairport | Hilton | Honeoye Falls | Pittsford | Scottsville | Spencerport | Webster) has its own village article. Truthanado 17:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * it might well be true, but the reference I have quoted below about writing on settlements clearly says that, in order to reduce the number of stubs, "villages and other settlements within a civil parish should be in one article". Peter Shearan (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Harvel has potential to expand. Am surprised the pub isn't mentioned (unique name)! Mjroots (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The article in general
Agree - although we are not supposed to be discussing future trends! Whilst I can see the reason for having a separate article for Harvel, since it is quite obviously (on the ground) entirely separate from Meopham; but why are Culverstone Green et al considered to be separate "villages"? The main point often made about Meopham is that it has "the longest village street in England" (Kent?) - and now we are seeking to divide it up! And I really cannot see how extrapolating New York to here has any bearing whatsoever: It is a (slightly!?) different scale, is it not? I note that the article for Hook Green, Gravesham (look at its title!) - right in the middle of the main village - says that it is "a village near Gravesend, Kent, England"!!!!

There is a wealth of information in all those "External links" (frowned upon by the Wiki How to write about settlements notes), two of which - those on the conservation areas, give an entirely different slant on what Meopham is all about. Two places - Camer and Nurstead - are completely absent from this article; and there is no mention of anywhere called Culverstone Green. IMO it is either residents' snobbery that seeks to put themselves in a different category ("Oh no we don't live in Meopham!") or just a means of making more and more articles for the sake of it. Why can we not have a comprehensive article on the main village itself, with Harvel being an outlier, having its own article? That would then give credence to the "longest village" statement and give us a much more comprehensive article. So I would recommend merging all the others here. Peter Shearan (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The article seems a bit contradictory. At one point it says the main village is made of four settlements (though doesn't name these) with Harvel and Culverstone as added extras, then in the next section divides the main village into only two - Hook and Meopham Greens. A year or so ago I read a history of Meopham which said it was made up of four settlements based around four greens (Nurstead Green, Hook Green, Meopham Green and Culverstone Green). Does anyone know any more about this? At any rate I think the article needs to be a bit more consistent in describing just what constitutes the main village, and how it came to be one larger settlement. Annoyingly I also have no idea where I read this, so it would be helpful (to me at least) if anyone knows of any sources, or if someone who knows a bit more could make the changes to the article? 141.228.106.149 (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite of article
The reasons for my rewrite are many. Firstly there are all those links, as I said above, which showed that some of the article's statements were incorrect. I have included all the facts about the separate parts of the village within this, and have suggested merging of the three stubs into it. I have also used the comment in the "How to write about settlements" article, which suggests, quite clearly, that a civil parish is the basic article, and should include all the separate parts within it. Of course, where one of those separate parts has so much to say that it begs an article to itself, it should be given one, but I cannot think that the three stubs I am suggesting be merged will ever reach that stage. I have also reduced all the "External Links" to references. I hope this will now make a much more rounded article.

It did strike me at one point that there could even be a case for a diagrammatic picture of the village, although I must confess my ignorance of how to achieve one. Peter Shearan (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask and it shall be given. But seriously, what exactly do you have in mind. Colours, levels of detail etc. Can you give me a source reference on my talk page. ClemRutter (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 23:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"Meopham Green is home to a cricket pitch"
The article states "Meopham Green is home to a cricket pitch" complete with wikilink. Following the link confirms that a cricket pitch is simply the small central part of a field where cricket is played so I assume that the Green is actually "home to" a cricket field, or is regularly used as a cricket field, or something like that. Sussexonian (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)