The contents of the Blackbrook, Derbyshire page were merged into Belper on 28 September 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.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

UK geography Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Derbyshire Mid‑importance The article on Belper is supported by the Derbyshire WikiProject, which is a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of Derbyshire-related articles on Wikipedia.DerbyshireWikipedia:WikiProject DerbyshireTemplate:WikiProject DerbyshireDerbyshire articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. England B‑class Low‑importance 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 B 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.

If the references were evenly distributed then this would be near a B. See Derby School Victuallers 14:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Does this new infobox really have to be this large? Apart from anything else it's totally screwed up the layout of the page. Sources? It seems to have beem written mainly from local knowledge plus the reference book given at the bottom of the page. Chevin 09:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC) reply

It's the standard infobox for UK places. I don't know if there's anyway to change the size. I do think there's a lot of benefit to having standardized summary information like this. Sorry about the layout, I should have noticed. I'll have a look at how to make it look better - I haven't done that before, so it may take a day or two to get right :-). Is it just the layout problem you don't like about the infobox? -- Siobhan Hansa 16:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC) reply

To adjust for the info box I've integrated the photos into relevent sections of the article. There are still some layout issues with the first couple of photos where they are in the article at the same level as the info box. I can't seem to find a good solution for this that will work with any browser width. I'll look into it further. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I've had a little go at it which (on my browser) puts the images on the right and de-emphasises the size of the infobox. See what you think Chevin 07:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Works for me! Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Siobhan - noted your deletion of a church link. Your point is valid. I volunteer to do some research into the religious scene in Belper, and produce a paragraph as a result, and then add links to all churches that I can find. A little preliminary research shows that there seem to only be about 4 churches that have websites, so there's no need to fear that we'll fill the page with 20 links or so. Religion is a very significant part of the lives of a great number of people, so I think that a paragraph on this would be definitely of value (more value than knowing what Supermarkets there are, for example! :-) ). Do we have a consensus on this? 86.31.253.100 10:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I think a paragraph on the religious scene would be a very nice addition. It's an important part of the cultural fabric of the town. I'm against listing individual churches though. I don't think it's appropriate unless the chruch is itself notable within the town. Four websites, that represent a fraction of the religious institutions, would be a gross over representation in the article. In general, external links that merely promote a site are not appropriate for wikipedia (see WP:EL). A link to an appropriate, reasonably comprehensive listing of Belper religious groups might be good though.

On the supermarket comparison - I think more people in Belper use the supermarkets than the churches, and the fact that there are only three makes naming them individually more relevent (though it's not what I'd consider a priority) If people wanted to start naming every corner shop I'd think the comparison would be more solid. I also note that no one has tried to put in external links to the supermarket websites. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Quote: Foreign Secretary 1965-7 – represented Belper from 1945 until 1970, but never actually lived here.He kept a flat in Swadlincote at the opposite end of the constituency

He had a large house on Belper Lane and kept residence there for at least a few years (personal mempory) Chevin ( talk) 06:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I propose that Blackbrook, Derbyshire be merged into Belper. The former is a very brief stub that only provides the location of the hamlet. As such, it can be better served by a mention in the Belper article, as it falls within the town's civil parish. Jellyman ( talk) 08:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Personally I'm against this. Blackbrook is a separate settlement to Belper and has its own history, so in my opinion should be a separate article. I recognise that the Blackbrook article is just a stub at the moment, but it will probably be possible to add detail to it over time. I will try to find time to do some of this myself. -- Fluorescences ( talk) 11:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Four months on, and nothing has been done to expand it. That being the case, I'm thinking of going ahead with the merge anyway, with the proviso that of course it can be split off again if enough information is added to warrant it. I'll not do anything just yet, but unless somebody adds something to the article soon, it's getting merged... Jellyman ( talk) 18:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

No progress after six months, so I've gone ahead and merged it. Jellyman ( talk) 18:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Belper. 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/20070717193706/http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/derbyshi.htm to http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/derbyshi.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604225707/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TEXstrutt.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TEXstrutt.htm
• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9500253

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I propose to merge Bargate, Derbyshire and Belper Lane End. As with the previous merge of Blackbrook, Derbyshire, these articles are stubs (one unsourced) with little potential and both locations can better covered in the context of the nearby town whose civil parish they are within. Jellyman ( talk) 13:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Oppose, occupied places which seem sufficiently distant to keep separate. The Belper Lane End article also has 3 independent references. Klbrain ( talk) 21:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Weak oppose; smaller settlements than these have their own articles, and there is potential for expansion of both. Dave.Dunford ( talk) 22:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Belper Lane End per above. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Closing with no merge, given the opposition and no clear support. Klbrain ( talk) 07:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply

I believe this has been superseded by a Community Rail Partnership 08:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)