Talk:Stoneacre, Kent

Kent Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South 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.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Kent tasks:

edit
history
watch
purge

Here are some Kent related tasks you can do:

Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category.
Edit the Top and High importance articles.
Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury
Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council
NPOV: K College
Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles
Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent
Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society
Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles

Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion.

I've significantly extended this article from a stub. It used to be importance Low. Can someone reasses the article please. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Why has this article been moved? More importantly, why has there been no discussion? There is no other article "Stoneacre" in Wikipedia, so there was no need for this. For that matter, what is the point of the reference to Langdon Bay? If (and I doubt this) there was a need to create Stoneacre, Kent because people were looking for it, then a simple redirect is all that is needed. Perhaps the user thought he was implementing some part of WP:MOS, well if so please add a reference to the relevant section. I'm not about to try to revert this or raise an issue at WP:ANI, but in future at least some notice to the editors associated with an article and a chance for discussion would be appreciated. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologise if I caused any confusion. I considered the summary sufficient at the time of editing. My goal for the move article was to make it distinct by its geographical location, following the usual convention, which I boldly did. This move allows the subject of this article to be distinct in it's own right. I appreciate your feedback, again apologise for the confusion. --Jpswade (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the links (other than users' talk pages) for you. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Trust pilot[edit]

Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]