Contents

Talk:Kippax, West Yorkshire

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

Yorkshire Low‑importance Kippax, West Yorkshire is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

This article sounds like it has been written with a bias against ongoing development and the loss of Kippax own identity.

--87.81.156.162 19:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)RDG[reply]

I am going to relay this page out, add an info box and images, please bare with me while I do this and save edits while after I have finished, Ta Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There's a template {{Inuse}} you can put on the article itself to convey the same message - more chance of people seeing it there probably! Cheers, PamD (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kippax, West Yorkshire/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 18:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Keith, looking at the less than beautiful village centre, I agree the 2 buildings are eyesores but ... Do you think the picture and description are potentially part of a POV campaign? Regards JRPG (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the section needs some attention to remove most of the POV and just to leave some basic detail. Only the final sentence is referenced but that could be relocated elsewhere as not really specific to the section, if moved could we do without the section? Keith D (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]