Talk:Dunsmore, Buckinghamshire

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles

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.

This article states that much of land round Dunsmore is owned by the Forestry Commission. Is this right? Land ownership round here is complex but my feeling is that it's the National Trust that own the land that isn't in private ownership - certainly towards Coombe Hill anyway. I'm not sure though. Any hard facts on this?

--Pdean 19:16, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, most of the Chiltern Forest (or what's left of it) is Forestry Commission as opposed to National Trust. There are signs up in the woods all around Dunsmore to state this. Anything that's not owned by the Forestry Commision is either private property or property of the local council. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Graham - thanks but, sorry, I just don't think it's right in the specific case of Dunsmore. There aren't any Forestry Commission signs around here. In fact, Scrubwoods has a NT sign. The land to the north west of the centre of Dunsmore is owned by us and the Brackleys. I've spoken to Nick Phillips who is the NT officer responsible for the area (and he also lives in Dunsmore) and he has confirmed that the rest is owned either by the NT or Bucks County Council. The nearest Forestry Commission land that I know of is at Wendover Woods on the other side of the valley - that is clearly signed as such. It's not a big issue but if the Dunsmore page is going to mention land ownership that it ought to be right. I can't comment on anywhere else in the Chilterns and you obviously know more about it than I do but I just can't see any evidence for the assertion that the land round Dunsmore is owned by the Forestry Commission? -- Pdean 18:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

G'day Peter...a note from Downunder. My gran lived in a tiny cottage in Dunsmore for many years, on the right-hand side just past the pub (The Fox?) in the dead end road towards the woods thru to Coombe Hill. If you now own the land to the North West, maybe her old cottage--if its still standing--is yours? I would love to know. I spent wonderful school holidays with her in the 50's. Squirrels etc everywhere! Cheers! B.Seddon 24/12/06

Well all I can say is if you live there then you probably know the situation more accurately than I do so change the article. Graham ☺ | Talk 07:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok - will do - thanks -- Pdean 14:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merger proposal

User:DGG has suggested that Dunsmore, Buckinhamshire - a history be merged to Dunsmore, Buckinghamshire. I support this proposal, as the former page is avowedly original research, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I suggest that the merge be done soon, lest the page again be nominated for deletion. Cnilep (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger as such implies there is good Wikipedia-orientated content on Dunsmore, Buckinhamshire - a history. As this article content appears to be original research and is also probably infringing WP:COPYVIO apparently based wholly or mainly on Dunsmore, People and Happenings Remembered which appears to be a self puublished booklet seehere as it stands I would oppose this merger. I would propose that User talk:Petergem06 who must have access to this book should be encouraged to contribute suitable cited material from the book which presumably s/he has access.Tmol42 (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tmol42, it looks and reads like original research, borrowed directly from a book. I too oppose any merger proposal. -- role^player 17:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, there is the problem that the information will need to be rewritten, for as is, it seems that it;'s likely to have been a copypaste from somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]