Talk:Pelsall
Add topic | The content of Pelsall Common was merged into Pelsall on 18 February 2025. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
| The content of Pelsall Wood was merged into Pelsall on 19 February 2025. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
| The content of Ryders Hayes was merged into Pelsall on 23 February 2025. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Pelsall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080820072711/http://politics.guardian.co.uk/hoc/constituency/history/0,,-670,00.html to http://politics.guardian.co.uk/hoc/constituency/history/0,,-670,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Request for semi protection
[edit]I have made a request to protect this page from repeating vandalism from anonymous users. Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Brownhills,_Pelsall_and_Aldridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 02:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- With this outcome. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Page protection
[edit]Need to protect page. Keeps getting vandalized. JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Just to confirm. Page has full protection unless registered users JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Just to confirm. Page has full protection unless registered users JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- The page does not have full protection, it has semi protection. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Merge proposals
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I propose merging Pelsall Wood and Pelsall Common into Pelsall. I think the content in those articles can fit easily into the village article, indeed there is already some overlap, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Pelsall. KJP1 (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Agree to both. Pelsall Wood looks like an attempt to fit a name to a topic and in so doing is creating a definition problem - better to avoid this by moving relevant content into the Pelsall article. Pelsall Common doesn't need the (invented?) section numbers and list of surrounding roads when Walsall.gov just states the area is split into four sections by the B4154 and Vicarage Road. Also, putting these two under the one Pelsall name reduces unnecessary links between articles. Rupples (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also propose merging Heath End, West Midlands to here. KJP1 (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Except for the Walsall Observer, which has Heath End as a separate news heading, other sources mostly add the qualifier Pelsall i.e. "Heath End, Pelsall", so a merger for this seems appropriate. "Heath End, West Midlands" doesn't appear to be a particularly useful search term for this suburban area compared with "Heath End, Pelsall", so I'd recommend creating an additional redirect in that name. Rupples (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also propose merging Heath End, West Midlands to here. KJP1 (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Rupples - Will do. How long are we supposed to wait before we can execute said Mergers? Seven days? While I have you, I've been looking over the review table. We've made good progress and my gut feeling is that we're well over half-way through. One of the things we need to bottom out is those entries where you/Uncle G have made detailed comments, but I'm not wholly sure whether they've all been translated into actions; i.e. the MERGE/the REDIRECT or whatever was suggested has been done. Is there a quick way to ascertain this? I actually think Uncle G's have not been done, which is fine as I can do them, but I think yours may be more of a mix. Some of mine are in the same state, e.g. we don't yet know where the Built-up areas are going, although I doubt they will remain as standalones. Let me know your preferred approach. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- @KJP1, WP:MERGECLOSE says normally leave for at minimum a week. These merges are likely uncontroversial and can go ahead at the week's expiry. I'll take a look at the articles mentioned - good point, it's easy to take one's eye of the ball, procrastinate and forget. Been working on another article and taking a break from the DofB clean up this week, it felt like becoming a slog —— admire your staying power! Rupples (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- A break is wise. It is a slog, and a thankless one, and I’m hugely admiring of, and grateful for, the efforts of the small band who are working on it. I gained a lot of experience on a rather gruelling four-month CCI, and I am determined this won’t take as long! KJP1 (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- @KJP1. I'll have a go at these merges, starting with Pelsall Common. Don't recall carrying out a merge before, so it will be a learning experience. Grateful if you would check things through afterwards. Rupples (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Possible source on geology for future content from Pelsall Common article. Can't fathom out content, so removing from article and placing here for now.[1] Rupples (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Another two sources which could potentially be used in the article, but not in Pelsall Common section. Rupples (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- @KJP1. I'll have a go at these merges, starting with Pelsall Common. Don't recall carrying out a merge before, so it will be a learning experience. Grateful if you would check things through afterwards. Rupples (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- A break is wise. It is a slog, and a thankless one, and I’m hugely admiring of, and grateful for, the efforts of the small band who are working on it. I gained a lot of experience on a rather gruelling four-month CCI, and I am determined this won’t take as long! KJP1 (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- @KJP1, WP:MERGECLOSE says normally leave for at minimum a week. These merges are likely uncontroversial and can go ahead at the week's expiry. I'll take a look at the articles mentioned - good point, it's easy to take one's eye of the ball, procrastinate and forget. Been working on another article and taking a break from the DofB clean up this week, it felt like becoming a slog —— admire your staying power! Rupples (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Rupples - Will do. How long are we supposed to wait before we can execute said Mergers? Seven days? While I have you, I've been looking over the review table. We've made good progress and my gut feeling is that we're well over half-way through. One of the things we need to bottom out is those entries where you/Uncle G have made detailed comments, but I'm not wholly sure whether they've all been translated into actions; i.e. the MERGE/the REDIRECT or whatever was suggested has been done. Is there a quick way to ascertain this? I actually think Uncle G's have not been done, which is fine as I can do them, but I think yours may be more of a mix. Some of mine are in the same state, e.g. we don't yet know where the Built-up areas are going, although I doubt they will remain as standalones. Let me know your preferred approach. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- ↑ England), Birmingham Natural History and Philosophical Society (Birmingham (1897). Proceedings of the Birmingham Natural History and Philosophical Society. Birmingham Natural History Society.