Talk:North Walsham

The North Walsham article focusses, perhaps a little too much, on historical aspects. The modern town has a changing economy, marked in the last two decades by a gradual loss of local commercial businesses, especially small manufacturing firms and retail traders, and an increase in bank outlets and property traders. Its previously indigenous "bustling" market has declined to a few incoming traders each Thursday. The centre is in need of re-organisation, and increased pedestrianisation, if the town's trading status is to be restored. Based initially on a rural farming population, North Walsham is becoming increasingly a "dormitory town" for people who work in nearby Norwich, 15 miles away. A recent trend has been the local authority's sale of land, previously open to all the townsfolk, to private organisations. In brief, the rural nature of the town is giving way to urbanisation. I would like to see some of these realities reflected in the encyclopedia's text, rather than the gloss of a "Golden Age" of historical significance. Certainly, the town was historically important, but today, it mirrors the centralisation of the East Anglian economy, and the nationwide standardisation of "mall" retailers and service providers, to the detriment of its former local identity and uniqueness.

Update commentary

(I inserted the original comments above; apologies for not signing it back then) Those points still stand, but the improved page and structure is most welcome. Congratulations and thanks are due to the contributor/s who, especially in the last year, have made the North Walsham entry less perfunctory and laid the foundations for a really useful guide to the (albeit slowly) evolving town. Trevor H. (UK) 15:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

North Walsham Guide External Link

Is http://www.northwalshamguide.co.uk suitable for addition? Current belief is that the site itself has alternative commercial motives. Although there is useful content in places the content may be better adapted for the article directly, if applicable. IMO the site does not offer over and above the article iself and in accordance with External Links policy.

The North Walsham Guide

I can not understand why the link for the North Walsham Guide website keeps getting removed from Wikipedia. The North Walsham Guide orginisations is a non profit orginisations that provides general information about the town. No money is made from the site and it's run by people of North Walsham. Look for yourself http://www.northwalshamguide.co.uk.

The North Walsham Guide

The North Walsham Guide is not a 'non profit organistaion'. It is a 'website' developed by a website design company to assist with promoting local business and services (including their own). It is, in the first instance, a businesss directory. The site itself may indeed be of value and have a wealth of local information however Wikipedia has strict policies on the adding of external links.

Reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. I am of the opinion that this site is considered one to be avoided based on (1), (4), (13), (14).

There is also the matter of 'Advertising and conflicts of interest'. The link to the site has been added/edited/deleted and added again by BPNW who is actually Beauchamp Partnership North Walsham (www.bpnw.co.uk) and accordingly the policies state: in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked.

Clearly by the edit log a 'cat and mouse' game has been going on with regards to this link which in itself is against editing policy on the part of both the person adding the link and also the user who is deleting the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.113.27 (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Though the site does include business, the site also features tones of information on the history of the town. This contains pictures and information that are not available anywhere except The North Walsham Guide. It also includes information on areas such as the Dilham Canal, Bluebell Pond, The old cinemas, etc which have been completely ignored by Wikipedias page and as such represents a far more conclusive outline of North Walsham both past and present. The link that is currently featured (Town Council) has very little information about the town, also features a directory of North Walsham businesses and services, and appears to be abandoned yet this link does not get removed and if www.northwalshamguide.co.uk is against Wikipedia rules then the town council one is more so. The guide is run by volunteers on a totally non-profit basis. Nobody pays to appear on it and nobody pays to use it. Actually it is ran at a loss. The link to the companies which sponsort the site is common practice and is not disimilar to the link at the bottom of the Town Council website to the commercial website producer but for some reason it is felt that the Town Council website is OK and North Walsham Guide is not. This appears to be a double standard. Also sites for bands such as Green Day seem to be have links considered perfectly legal even though they link to their official website which has adverts on, sells CDs and Tickets, advertises the websites producers, contains no more 'real' information than Wikipedia itself and is no more than shameless self publicity purely for profit. Why is this OK? I am not trying to break rules I'm just sharing information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innercitymixtape (talk • contribs) 16:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The North Walsham Guide

I refer again to in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked.. If you do not wish to break rules then with all due respect, respect them. If there is anything that you do not understand then ask and there are many who would be very willing to help in anyway possible.

The fact that the site links to its sponsors (owners and operators of the site) is not in question here and is not the issue in anyway. The guidelines state clearly not to add a link that you own, maintain, or represent even if the guidelines would normally encourage the linking of the site. This site was added and edited on multiple occassions by the owners.

If you wish to add content that is missing from WP on topics such as the Dilham Canal etc then as an Open project you are very welcome to contribute this information to WP which would be the prefered course of action here.

If you do not agree with the policy then this should be disussed in the relevant area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.45.247 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on North Walsham. 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/20170211032229/http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/consumption/groups/public/documents/general_resources/ncc017867.xls to http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/consumption/groups/public/documents/general_resources/ncc017867.xls

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) 06:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)