Jump to content

Talk:Sydenham, Leamington Spa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Delete

Don't delete it, a lot of people live there and it does exist. AJUK Talk!! 10:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know Sydenham. If you wish this article to stay, please help establish some notability. references, and change tone to encyclopaedic. Currently, a merge with Leamington is a minimum. Widefox (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you help establish notability - you can follow the links to help establish this. Widefox (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove the notability notice without establishing notability. Widefox (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being an sizable region within the town it is significant. Snowman (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge into Leamington Spa. -- Widefox (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if the population is very low." See Wikipedia:Notability (geography). Snowman (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve; I used to live on Gainsborough Drive in Sydenham and have affection towards it. However whereas Lillington and Cubbington were formerly villages and therefore have enough history to fill a page, I believe Sydenham was build recently on green fields. The current article is very brief, and includes little to distinguish it from any other residential area in Britain, yet I can't think of anything else of note that could be added. --Ukslim (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Notability (geography). Snowman (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; I think Sydenham is notable and should have its own article. There are several districts in Leamington and so the main page would become imbalanced if one district was mentioned more than the others. Snowman (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that Lillington is clearly notable (see refs on the article). Can you provide any references for the notability of Sydenham? Maybe there's something in the industrial estate of notability, but I don't know of any. Widefox (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added references and I am sure many more are available. It is significant to the area and it contains a large social housing estate. I am sure it would be possible to write a sizable article on the subject. Snowman (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the need to quote the notability guidelines:
  • A neighborhood within a major city that has a substantially noticeable difference to the surroundings.
  • A neighborhood or sub-section of a city/town/village should be incorporated in the article about the town or city it is located in, unless it has exceptional notability of its own.

However, any area that has something exceptional about it merits its own article, and ideally the area should be discussed in reliable sources. The notable feature could be for instance (but not limited to) a business or tourist district, a place with a noticeable economic effect upon a region (jobs and/or raw materials usage/production), or a place where some historical event occurred.

Italics mine. --Ukslim (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no references I quote "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." . The article has no references of opinions of reliable authors, only interpreted primary sources. WP:RS Widefox (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The size of the social housing in the estate would have a significant effect on the surroundings, and the housing in the estate is significantly different and has a density higher to most of the other housing in the locality. I think that by using these criteria it should have its own page. Snowman (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you the most notable thing I've heard - Sydenham is the most multicultural area in Warwickshire. I have no reference for that, so it is just hearsay. Anyhow, the point is...the article still has no references for notability, let alone "exceptional notability". Should every school result in a notable area? No. Widefox (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On inspecting a map it is clear that the density of the streets in Sydenham is different to the surrounding areas. I have been there and I can confirm that as an area of Leamington is should have its own page. I think that the Leamington article needs more linked pages with text and not more text itself. Snowman (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is you original research WP:OR. So, there's no refs for this article then? and yes, I'm also fond of Sydenham and know it well. ;) Widefox (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A map can provide a lot of verifiable information. Snowman (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I summarise that consensus has been reached. Result: Merge. I will proceed with merge. Widefox (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Result so far: Merge is in majority 3:2 (3:1 if counting up to when I closed before) and will be merged imminently. Widefox (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The votes are 3 to 2. This is not an overall consensus and so the merge should not be done. Snowman (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True there's no consensus. There's also been no attempt to advance/reach notability in almost a year. Out of the two refs, one is broken and there is no single reference discussing Sydenham. Claims made by interpreting the map are original research WP:OR. I'm sure you know WP:N well ... "...If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context.[9] Otherwise, if deleting:[10]...". I'd prefer the merge option to the boarder article Leamington Spa which is the address in that area of Leamington. I've listed the merge at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers which is the appropriate action when mergers are contested. Widefox (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Map citations used in this article indicate sources for information, which is eminently verifiable from the map specified. I believe that the map cited is highly reliable. Information obtained from a map is not original research. Snowman (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The map would be useful for coordinates, and such basic things. Types of houses is clearly WP:OR. The estate was actually created as a council estate in the late 60s, and is of course by now mixed. Orbit housing being prevalent for social housing, especially on Fallow Hill. Anyhow, its all WP:OR. If you want me to put you in contact with the history group, then say. Widefox (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The map cited shows the school and other geographic features of the area. The map in-line citation points are strategically placed indicating a reference for these features which are all represented on the map. The map provides a clear route for verification for the points covered by the relevant in-line citations. The history group has got nothing to do with the verifiable in-line citations to a map. I have changed the cite template to cite map. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there may be a misunderstanding, the Sydenham history group may be able to provide you with references that may make Sydenham a notable article. You didn't answer my point about housing, and the broader claims in the article that are mostly unreferenced. There is no 3rd party text reference currently, and I don't know one. Sydenham is just an area like Milverton etc and there are no articles for them, or even Old Town etc. WP:OR or not. Widefox (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partly from the additional information that you have provided in this discussion about Sydenham, I think that Sydenham would make a good subject for a wiki article, and the references could easily become available. It would just take someone a little time to go down to a local library and look in the local history section and find a few references. I see no justification to merging this article with Leamington Spa. Snowman (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the housing question? (3rd time I ask) I'm sure we can all agree that Sydenham is worthy of mention on the Leamington article. Summing up - no (text) 3rdP refs at this point or any foreseeable point in the future. Please can we discuss the actual problems (like housing), The details of what is in Sydenham is all unreferenced and can be removed. Widefox (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you are in agreement with the content of the article, and so I can not understand why you have added cn tags, which are generally used when an aspect of page content is doubted or to verify a claim. The housing style is local common knowledge. I think that this article on Sydenham will develop in time and should not be merged. Snowman (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed factual errors, and removed unreffed content. There's not a lot you can get in an article read off a map to be honest. The result is unencyclopaedic. and could be tagged as such. Widefox (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Map sources are catered for on the wiki by a template for map citations. Snowman (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus reached

I think we have now reached consensus on the article (by editing) WP:NOT#DEM. I interpret Notability has not been reached - see WP:NOT "Significant coverage" (and discussion above). As notability has not been reached in the last year, with no movement to, I will now close this discussion, and merge the article. Of course, in future things might be different, but please do not recreate the article without finding significant coverage as per guidelines. Any recreation without will be nominated for deletion ("Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" and "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline"). Widefox (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sydenham, Warwickshire

I have closed the discussion and merged. I know you have opposes this until now, but we have reached consensus on the article (edit consensus) and all these arguments are not progressing after 1 year, all as per discussion and edit summaries. Even the article name is questionable, considering there is no address Sydenham, Warwickshire. Widefox (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not think that 3 to 2 is a consensus, and I will inform what you have done to an administrator, who is interested in Warwickshire. I think that, at least, the merge discussion should have been closed by an uninvolved administrator as indicated on Help:Merging and moving pages. Snowman (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the link I left about consensus by editing. When you removed the merge tag without warning or closing the discussion (and left the other 1/2 of the merge tag on Leamington)[1], it was really time to properly close this after 1 year without notability reached, and a last attempt at advancing the article. Widefox (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I appropriately removed the merge templates from both pages on 16 May 2009, with this edit from the Sydenham page and this edit to the Leamington page. The previous contribution to the discussion on the proposed merge was on 18 February when the discussion had reached 3 to 2 as seen. I will be informing what you have done to the administrator who in interested in Warwickshire. He is on holiday at present and I will inform him on his return. Snowman (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you mean above - you have not provided an edit link of Leamington Spa. You did not edit it on the 16th, and by the 20th it was still there [2]. I repeat, you left the tag there and I removed it today. In any case, removing the tags before closing the discussion is not appropriate. Widefox (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appropriately removed the merge template on 16 May 2009 with this edit from the Sydenham page, and I guess because of an oversight I was accidentally logged out when I removed the merge banner from the Leamington page with this edit about three mins earlier. The previous contribution to the discussion on the Sydenham talk page on the proposed merge was on 18 February 2009 when the discussion had reached 3 to 2 as seen. I feel that an uninvolved administrator should have closed the page because of the the discussion on the merge that occured after 16 May 2009. Anyway, I will be informing what you have done to the administrator who in interested in Warwickshire. He is on holiday at present and I will inform him on his return. Snowman (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was certainly reached in that discussion. Remember that it is not a vote. No suitable arguments were given from the "keep" side. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would much prefer if this decision was made by an independent administrator as is recommended in the wiki guidelines for a controversial merge. I think that the discussion after 16 May 2009 indicates that the merge is controversial. Snowman (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would agree that it could be argued that consensus in the discussion was reached too. There was no plausible reason advanced, and no attempt made in 1 year to advance notability. That is an exceptionally long time. Additionally, this edit [[3] to recreate the link under a different name (and against disambig style) is not appropriate. And the edit you have claimed as your own incorrectly removed 2 merge tags from two articles in merge discussion [4] and was correctly immediately reverted by another editor [5] and can be considered vandalism. Widefox (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained I guessed that I accidentally logged out, if that edit was mine. Please note WP:assume good faith, and I would be grateful if you would apologise for suggesting that one of my edits was vandalism. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with red links on a disambiguation page. Please apologise for saying that this is inappropriate. Snowman (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should he apologise for saying that something (which is inappropriate) is inappropriate? You were attempting to create a POV fork which is unacceptable. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#A_merged_page. Snowman (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
POV forks are inappropriate, as is blanking tags (it is vandalism). You have admitted you removed the merge tags (without leaving edit summaries, or properly closing the merge discussion). I do not understand - in your comment above you seem to distance yourself from it "if that edit was mine", whereas earlier today you insisted you had made those edits, and in fact it was you that indicated to us that they were your edits! Anyhow, it can be considered vandalism (due to the ongoing merge processes), and was immediately reverted by another editor. I have not mentioned that you did one of those content blanks without being logged in. Also, nobody has mentioned red links on a disambiguation page. The disambiguation problems were 1. POV folk, 2. two links on one line. Let's not get distracted by false accusations now - the real ones are clearly laid out above by two editors. Mmmm, seems this discussion is finding a home on a 3rd page now. Widefox (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But "Sydenham, Leamington" is the proper name for the area, as far as I understand it. But there is no fork, because the "Sydenham, Warwickshire" page is now a redirect and there is no page there. Snowman (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Content forking Widefox (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read that and see that there is absolutely nothing wrong with article spin out. Also, as the "Sydenham, Warwickshire" is a redirect, I do not see any forking. No new Leamington related articles have been started. See Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles. Snowman (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts to recreate a merged article under a new name immediately after the article has been merged is not a spin out, it is a POV folk. Please consult others if you disagree. Widefox (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I have not attempted to recreate the page in question. And if I did, I hope I would made an article with adequate references, that would keep a deletionist away, and there would be nothing wrong with that. Furthermore, when done appropriately using adequate references, articles can be re-established after being converted into a redirect. See WP:CCC. I have better things to do than discuss undue allegations about one red link. See WP:AGF. Snowman (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removal of tags

Your recent edit removed content from Leamington Spa. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. you have claimed this edit as your own, so ... http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Leamington_Spa&diff=290391655&oldid=290288689 Widefox (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that was my edit (I can not confirm this 100%), I can confirm that it would have been a genuine wish to remove old banners from the page. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it was your edit, it is vandalism (as per above). If it wasn't, then when you claimed earlier today that you had removed both matching tags was wrong, and you had incorrectly only removed one. Anyhow, they are all vandalism with no edit summaries, due to the ongoing merge discussion that you participated in. Widefox (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the system will log you out if you had not edited for a while, or very occasionally I have logged into another wiki media project and when I have switched over to the English wikipedia found that I was logged out there. If that was my edit, I was accidentally logged off, and it would certainly have been a genuine wish to remove old banners from the page. Please withdrawn your allegations regarding vandalism. Snowman (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
may I suggest that you ask others about how legitimate it is to remove banners from 2 running merge processes (especially without edit summaries). For instance, the editor User:NorwegianBlue that reverted [6] your edit [7]. Also, the other 1/2 of the merge tag was left on Lansdowne Crescent, Leamington Spa. Widefox (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I supported the merge of the Lansdowne Crescent article a long time ago. The Sydenham article had not been added to for months and I thought that 2 to 3 was not an consensus. I thought that both merges were spent. I note that you closed the Sydenham merge where there was renewed discussion upto the day before you closed it. Snowman (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read editors previous comments about voting / consensus. I agree that it was an outstanding merge process, but know nothing about the term "spent"- it was time to close the merge process. Widefox (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have started merge processes and left them for months and months during which time no additional edits were contributed to the discussion leaving others to wonder what was happening. Snowman (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the tone is dropping, and this discussion is not advancing. This page is for discussing the article. No comment. Widefox (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to my comments, I believe that I have been accurate and objective. Snowman (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent)Having been ask to comment here. I think that the merge was closed inappropriately by the person who actually initiated the merge proposal in the first place it should have been closed by someone independent of the actual discussion especially as you indicate it was 3:2 in that discussion. Especially as the original basis for the merge was based on a document which is now a redirect to a dormant proposal. Personally I would have closed as no-consensus at this stage. Keith D (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments are at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive193#A_merged_page. Consensus is not a vote. Consensus was reached and others including an admin agree with that. Note there was no reasonable argument made or effort to advance the article in 1 year, and after the merge tags were removed, it really was time to close the process. I totally agree it could have been done by someone independent, alternatively, this merge process is not mandatory, and can be done at any time. Widefox (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that administrators have a difference of opinion regarding the merge, which shows how controversial the merge is, and not that any administrator is in error. The administrator who commented on the Administrators' noticeboard also indicated that the merge should have been closed by an uninvolved person, and so I suggest that the merge is undone and so that the merge discussion can be continued. I have reopened discussion at the administrators noticeboard at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/#A_merged_article. Snowman (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have referred the above canvassing of an admin to the administrators as a breach of WP:Canvassing#Forum_shopping, along with other disruptive editing. I have asked Snowman to stop canvassing and attempting to POV folk, and have reported these to the admin board. Widefox (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...which has brought a spotlight on your own edits. Snowman (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydenham,_Leamington_Spa&oldid=1203832386"