Jump to content

Talk:Sutton, London

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Delete

[edit]

I would suggest that if it doesn't grow within 24 hours (you listed it for deletion 3 minutes after creation), that it be changed to a redirect to London Borough of Sutton Markalex 17:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Shopping

[edit]

Is Shopping in Sutton notable? I think not...84.70.95.247 17:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton, the town, vs London Borough of Sutton

[edit]

I notice that there is confusion between the two in this article. For example, Education and Parks are, incorrectly, covering the Borough. I personally agree that the sections on shops and shopping need removing - they aren't appropriate. -Rodge500 08:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion often arises between references to the borough and the eponymous central area of a borough. Generally, it needs someone with local knowledge to fix it. I've moved education. Some info on shopping centres is appropriate, individual businesses names, not usually - unless they are otherwise notable in some way (like it being where the store started). So that should be removed. There should be a Sutton parks and open spaces article (... and there is). I'll try to fix a few things when I do a navigation template for the borough.
The borough article is extraordinarily thin and any contributions would be welcomed. Kbthompson 09:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done what I can, for the moment. It still needs to be trimmed for content (some is repetitive), and a greater focus (on the town centre). HTH. Kbthompson 10:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"Today" section

[edit]

I have removed the reference to "gamboling dens and gay bars" in relation to Sutton's nightlife. Gamboling dens sound delightful but i am not aware of the existence of any of these (or even gambling dens) Likewise I am not aware of the existence of any gay bars in the area. Obviously if anyone can prove likewise then please re-instate the relevant parts. Deckchair 13:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Nightlife

[edit]

I've removed

" There has also been a significant rise in criminality in recent years, especially since 24 hour bar licenses were introduced in 2005 [citation needed]. In response to this changing shift in demographics the Metropolitan Police have chosen Sutton as the location for a new central police station which is currently the largest in south London. Since this explosion of club culture in Sutton, Sutton has acquired a somewhat dubious reputation[citation needed]."

This is at best specuation - at worst totally false

Stats on sutton crime rates http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/tool/default.asp?region=9&force=12&cdrp=93&l1=0&l2=0&l3=0&sub=0&v=36


FYI There are no more nightclubs in sutton then there were in 2004

It would be better in my opinion to say...

"There has been a significent investment in suttons nightclubs in recent years"

"Suttons police station is the largest in south london" Davelane (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today Section revisited

[edit]

The today section is still really pants - i think I will rewrite it totaly --Davelane (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the wonderful picture of pavement and gutter in Throwley Way raises the whole tone of the article. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]

I am tempted to delete the education section as at current we have one un-cited "fact", and one single line stating that there are primary schools in the area. Removing the uncited text leaves us with very little worth keeping. Any thoughts? Deckchair (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Town

[edit]

Although there are a variety of ways to describe suburban locations, there is nothing to preclude describing them as towns, especially if that is used in published sources. MRSC (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It now forms a significant civic and retail district.

[edit]

Too POV to be encyclopedic. Reads like the borough's PR-department. If it is significant, say why (though I doubt it is - no-one's heard of it).

Photographs

[edit]

These need improving. A shot of a bus tells you nothing specific about the town. The shot of Asda needs to be balanced by one or two photos of town-specific points of interest such as the two wall-mosaics and the millenium dial just outside Waterstones. It would be great if someone who knows how to could upload these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A P Monblat (talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Photo heavy sections

[edit]

Both the "economy" and "culture" sections are now photo heavy. I would suggest at least one photo from each section be removed. Deckchair (talk) 09:48, 3 October P2012 (UTC)

Culture OK, one removed from economySovalValtos (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That suggestion was made when the word count was lower. It is no longer necessary to remove this photo; also. the images have just been reduced in size. A P Monblat (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Population figure

[edit]

This needs to include more wards such as Belmont and Stonecot - A P Monblat (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turnpike

[edit]

It seems most unlikely that a turnpike road was "constructed" in 1755, rather than embodied or some such. But if it was constructed we need a cit.SovalValtos (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion with twins

[edit]

There may be more confusion between the town and the borough in this page. Minden seems to be twinned with the borough. Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf (from the former Wilmersdorf) is possibly now twinned with the borough. Some good citations are needed to clear any muddle on this and associated pages.SovalValtos (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have redrafted to take account of this. A P Monblat (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage mural pic

[edit]

I am attempting to process the current close-up pic by manipulating it in a photo editor so that it seems to be seen head on. Just be warned I am a beginner at this, so there may be much wrong. I will re upload it. SovalValtos (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! Well done. A P Monblat (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image Bloat

[edit]

There are too many photos in the article. Four of one building and others duplicates of images in derived articles. I have found it safest to allow others to add images I have taken, rather than do it myself. Temptation has not always been resisted! SovalValtos (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right - I have removed two already and will look for one or two more. But it should be noted that I have added images of notable subjects by other photographers when possible. It is just that many of the photos on Wikimedia and Geograph are relatively random shots, while the key sites are left unphotographed - perhaps there is the (incorrect) assumption that someone else must surely have photographed them already. A P Monblat (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

London Plan

[edit]

All areas in London have their status in the London Plan identified, in particular the "metropolitan centres", of which Sutton is one. Both for consistency and notability, this needs to be added back, imho. It is actually a key plan about London's future development, complete with its own detailed wikipedia article. A P Monblat (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another link?

[edit]

Might this be useable as a link on one or other of the Sutton pages? http://www.ltmcollection.org/films/film/film.html?IXfilm=FLO.0003&_IXSESSION_=sLo7_FNyww7 SovalValtos (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Iconic fountain' Manor Park

[edit]

At the time of writing there are 3 (THREE) pictures of the Manor Park fountain - and another 4 in a separate Manor Park article!

It's not 'iconic' in the normally accepted meaning of the word, it's rather prosaic in fact. So why so much coverage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.44.38 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source described the fountain as iconic. However, it is not essential to use the word in the article, so I shall delete it. A P Monblat (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed too many images that do not improve, but rather clutter this article. Commons is the place for most of them. The one in the info box of the fountain would suffice and then just one of the war memorial in the green spaces section. Much of the text should be removed as the linked page covers the topic. SovalValtos (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

article length

[edit]

There is a real issue of article length. The main article does not need to cover everything especially when that detail is found in other articles. I feel that the article is excessively padded out when detail can easily be found in other articles. Refer WP:LENGTH. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Sutton, London. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to disambiguation

[edit]

Sutton is a common place name and there is no rederict on this page to the disambiguation page. Should one be created? TMN81 (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 January 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck███ 19:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


– I believe Sutton, London is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Sutton. As stated on that page I have used the pageview analysis tool to compare all the listed articles on that disambiguation page solely named "Sutton". Since the tool has a limit of 10 pages at once I have done multiple analysis. The first comparison[1] with other places named solely "Sutton" in England tell us that:

  • Sutton, London has had 509k views, representing 89% of all the 10 listed articles.
  • It has had 1432 edits, 14x more than second placed Sutton, Bedfordshire
  • Its size is more than the rest combined.

The second comparison[2] including international places under the name Sutton shows that Sutton, London, with 509k views, again dominates the view figures of these 10 listed articles, with a monthly average views of 8x over the second most viewed Sutton, Ontario. It has had 5x more edits than the second most edited article, Sutton, Dublin.

Analysis with the remaining "Sutton" articles[3], including two that are not places, show that once again Sutton, London dominates the view numbers (7x more monthly avg views compared to second placed Sutton, Vermont), 1432 edits compared to second placed Sutton (surname) with only 86, and triple the number of editors compared to that.

Because Sutton, London, has multiple times the view numbers of other "Sutton" pages, has multiple times the edits, and has multiple times the size and content (i.e. proving popularity and long-term notability), there is no doubt in my mind that Sutton, London is a primary topic and should be moved to Sutton.

References

  1. ^ https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2020-11&pages=Sutton,_Bedfordshire%7CSutton,_Peterborough%7CSutton,_Newton%7CSutton,_Devon%7CSutton_Waldron%7CSutton,_Essex%7CSutton,_Kent%7CSutton,_London%7CSutton,_St_Helens%7CSutton,_Norfolk
  2. ^ https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2020-11&pages=Sutton,_London%7CSutton,_West_Sussex%7CSutton,_Selby%7CSutton,_Vale_of_Glamorgan%7CSutton,_New_South_Wales%7CSutton,_Ontario%7CSutton,_Quebec%7CSutton,_Dublin%7CSutton,_New_Zealand%7CSutton,_Massachusetts
  3. ^ https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2020-11&pages=Sutton,_London%7CSutton,_Nebraska%7CSutton,_New_Hampshire%7CSutton,_New_Jersey%7CSutton,_North_Dakota%7CSutton,_Vermont%7CSutton,_West_Virginia%7CSutton_(surname)%7CSutton_(constructor)

– Jf81 (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sutton titles a dab page with significant content and so is ineligible as a new page title unless it is also proposed to be renamed. This request has been altered to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are so many places called Sutton both in England and a few other countries for the one in London to be primary, see views[[1]] the London one gets the most (especially when you consider that the borough is a sub topic) but its not plausible that it is more common than all the others. Having it at the top seems sufficient. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Chester or Canterbury. Another example of so many places with that name, but they have (presumably forever) been primary to the English cities. Also the London one doesn't just get most but by a high margin, multiple times of its nearest contender. --Jf81 (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
London yes, but the point is I'm not blindly making these RMs from a strictly personal/regional perspective; I am showing statistics that support these requests, worldwide Wiki statistics, that prove the London Sutton is much more notable by a wide margin than any other entry. I wouldn't for instance support an RM for Richmond, London because I 100% agree that one is not a primary topic. --Jf81 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see slightly more uses for the borough than for the settlement in search results, but even combined I'm not seeing either as primary topic. I'm editing from London and so naturally see a London bias in my search results so primary topic is probably even less clear for those nearer some other Sutton. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken with the thought process. The borough is a larger entity with a longer name related to the town. There is no borough name in all of England that is primary over a town, nor Borough of Milton Keynes, Metropolitan Borough of Bury, not even London Borough of Hillingdon which itself (Hillingdon) is a small neighbourhood. --Jf81 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2021 (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.

Jon Hiseman

[edit]

Jon Hiseman is listed here as being born in Sutton. However, the Jon Hiseman page says he was born in Woolwich and died in Sutton. This Guardian obituary says Woolwich too: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jun/18/jon-hiseman-obituary wayland (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I arrived at this article in relation to a 1974 birth, which the article quotes as Brixton, and the records as Sutton; looking in two birth/marriage/death online indexes there is no trace of a Philip John Hiseman (likewise under the putative mother's name of Spratt). It was wartime, and people moved around together with bombing, etc. I don't have time to spend exploring up blind alleys like this, but thank you for noticing the discrepancy.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found, both indexes stating Woolwich registration district one, two.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you meant to link to this entry at FreeBMD. Interestingly, Jon Hiseman does not give his third initial i.e. Philip J. A. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Martinevans123 - don't know what happened there, too many tabs open when rushing.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Unfortunately FreeBMD links are unstable anyway, so this one will soon degrade. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Six hours later and I still have all the tabs open after the battery went down!--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

[edit]

I looked at this article in connection with something else; the first thing I noticed is the time-lapse image (File:Long exposure night shot of Sutton pace.jpg) added by A P Monblat (who has perhaps many, many hundreds of edits to this article) in this 2015 change.

I feel the image does nothing for a reader to understand the article, or even the context of the image content itself, and is contrary to WP:IMAGERELEVANCE, being only decorative. This type of thing encourages others; another editor who is prolific in locality articles has been adding similar montages, sometimes using phrases such as 'brighten up the article'.

To ensure I'm not missing something relevant here I am inviting comments. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sutton,_London&oldid=1208883037"