Talk:Broughton Astley

UK geography Start‑class 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sutton in the Elms

Quote: It is often assumed that Sutton in the Elms is part of Broughton Astley, when in fact it still is seperate and has it's own identity.

Sutton has its own separate identity, to be sure. Nevertheless it is, together with Primethorpe and Broughton proper, a constituent part of Broughton Astley parish -- as the inscription on the Millennium Stone in the centre of BA (i.e Primethorpe!) makes clear. -- Picapica 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as so often happens this is due to the common misconception about the difference between parish - an area usually larger than one village - and the village (more than one in this case) that make up the parish. Also (the teacher in me!) its is separate not seperate and please not it's Peter Shearan 18:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

Is there any real reason for this Sutton-in-the-Elms village to be listed in a separate page from Broughton Astley? I feel that, given what I've read here about it being in Broughton Astley's parish, and that there is literally nothing in its page, it does not warrant its own page at this time. Comments? DeMatt (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - unless there is more that can be written about it then it should be merged (the guidelines for this are at WP:UKCITIES) - a separate article is not needed unless there is more content. —Snigbrook 10:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]