Talk:Long Melford
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Cuckoo Tye page were merged into Long Melford on 07 June 2011. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| The contents of the Bridge Street, Suffolk page were merged into Long Melford on 21 February 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
George Borrow
editHe used 'Long Melford' as a synonym for boxing, or fighting "Do you use [practise] Long Melford?". Arthur Conan Doyle mentions it in his parody of Borrow 'Borrowed Scenes'. Why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.224.95 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Isopel (Belle) Berners one of Barrow's characters said she was from the great hall at Melford - thought to refer to the Workhouse which stood in Church Walk close to The Black Lion.
Long Melford is also a type of purse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.66.200 (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Rodbridge Corner
editI feel that there is little merit in having a separate article for Rodbridge Corner. It has a tiny population, little of significance has happened there (as far as I am aware) and it is effectively part of Long Melford the village. It is definitely part of the parish of Long Melford, and since the Long Melford article covers both of these it seems best to put it in this context. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose, as you quoted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flushing Farm, there are about 100 listed buildings in Long Melford 1 so there is a lot of merit in having a separate article for Rodbridge Corner. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 19:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are misrepresenting ILEW if you are suggesting his/her comment in that discussion was in favour of writing about all of them. Quite the opposite. But regardless, the number of listed buildings in Long Melford has absolutely no bearing at all on this discussion. Nancy talk 07:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, being Grade II listed does not indicate notability. As I state in the discussion that Crouch, Swale refers to I wrote that such buildings are not remarkable and the editor is completely misinterpreting my comment. Regardless, though there may be much of merit to have content on in Long Melford there is little to nothing in Rodbridge Corner and hence my suggestion that it does not need a separate article. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are misrepresenting ILEW if you are suggesting his/her comment in that discussion was in favour of writing about all of them. Quite the opposite. But regardless, the number of listed buildings in Long Melford has absolutely no bearing at all on this discussion. Nancy talk 07:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Can't see justification for a separate article & contextually it would provide a much better and more helpful user experience to have what little info there is on Rodbridge Corner within Long Melford with a (deliberate use of the singular) redirect. Nancy talk 07:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support as per nom and Nancy.
- Support - Rodbridge is part of Long Melford. The Railway Walk from Rodbridge to Sudbury and Rodbridge Picnic Park are both managed by Long Melford Parish Council and it is of historical sinificance. A Roman Cursus and Villa were located here and one of Melford's many Guildhalls stood at Rodbridge Corner next to the present day Guildhall Farm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.66.200 (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Long Melford. 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/20120706005614/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/home/view-page/item850029/261684/ to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/home/view-page/item850029/261684/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213030226/http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/features/when_john_lennon_brought_a_lot_of_hot_air_to_suffolk_1_747770 to http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/features/when_john_lennon_brought_a_lot_of_hot_air_to_suffolk_1_747770
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: 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) 20:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)