Talk:Burnopfield

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.

England Start‑class Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

North East England Low‑importance

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NO to merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Burnopfield. -- DarkCrow^Caw 18:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No to Merger. this merger is a poor idea. it proposes to merge two very distinct subjects. Ouedbirdwatcher (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE

Having lived in the village for a long time this must be merged. There is no distinct village of Sheephill. There were in the past a number of villages i.e. Lintz, Leazes, Burnopfield and to a lesser extent even Crookgate that have become known as Burnopfield. Try to find the village of Sheephill on a map. All you will find is a street at the East of Burnopfield called Sheephill. Markthompson77 (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Reasons to Merge

Sheephill is a street within Burnopfield and definitely does not carry the village status. The Sheephill article does not however, suggest that Sheephill is a village in its own right. User —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.27.103 (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:BurnopfieldStJames.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BurnopfieldStJames.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:BurnopfieldStJames.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burnopfield. 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/20041118190844/http://www.keystothepast.info:80/durhamcc/K2P.nsf/K2PDetail?readform&PRN=D6754 to http://www.keystothepast.info/durhamcc/K2P.nsf/K2PDetail?readform&PRN=D6754

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that Lintz be merged into Burnopfield. The former is an extremely short stub about an adjacent hamlet, with a map reference being the only source provided. It can be easily described in the article on its larger neighbour. Jellyman (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Agree. Tacyarg (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]