Talk:Brighton Road

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.

[edit] Why edit war?

Guys, instead of calling each other's edits "crap" and "vandalism", why not discuss the reasons to redirect or not redirect? Friday (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Because there is no useful information in here. If the A23 is Brighton Road, that should be on the article for the A23, not here (which it already is). It's a street name, and like all street names it's inherently arbitrary and volatile. It's got a hospital on it. Whoop-de-do! Again, would be more appropriate on the article for the road, rather than the street name, if at all. It's one of the longest streets in London. Apparently. Funny, since the title of "longest street in London" is usually attributed to Oxford Street. In summary, nothing worth merging => straight redirect. 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a merge is reasonable. It looks like the other article is in better shape. Generally, I'd rather have a "bushy" article tree (a smaller number of more complete articles) than a "long, thin" article tree (a large number of small, incomplete articles). However, it looks like we already have a lot of small articles on individual bits of road for some reason, so you may be fighting an uphill battle here. Friday (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why merge? Why redirect? why bother?

I'm sure Friday already knows what I think about his merge tag but I guess he wants "outside" opinions. Incidentally, for those who need help with merging/redirecting a given page, a good place to start is by posting to my user page. -- JJay 15:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

... which, according to the notice on there is ignored. I'll get back to the business of merging useful information (of which there is none in this article) into other articles and redirecting. I'd ask that you stop the disruptive process of repeatedly reinstating this fluff. 15:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• The other participant in this discussion knows exactly why that message is on my talk page. Otherwise, 82.15.28.195 please carry on with your business of removing "fluff". It's nice to know that judgement has been rendered and all decisions regarding the utility of content at wikipedia are being made by you 82.15.28.195. -- JJay 16:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  Jeez, WP:NPA. It's bad enough you calling sensible maintenance edits vandalism ... Anyway, with this edit, the merge is complete, and I will redirect. If you still disagree, fine. Just let's not edit war over this. 16:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Obviously I disagree 82.15.28.195. I will revert the redirect once I get around to adding more fluff content to the article. Just thought you should know 82.15.28.195. -- JJay 16:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh.

Obviously there is a difference of opinion here, but I see no reason to think that anyone is intentionally trying to make Wikipedia worse, that is vandalise. Assume good faith and all that. For what it's worth, I don't see any reason for the road to be considered encyclopedic, but if there is, feel free to present it. Regards, Ben Aveling 17:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC) PS. Please sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks.

I do sign them, albeit with 5 tildes instead of 4. There are good reasons why I do so. 17:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I disagree. 09:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)