Talk:Thelwall

message: #Article needs to be expanded using Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements as a guide. Note particularly the avoidance of a "Trivia" section and issues concerning External Links (mentioned again, below).
#More photos need to be added.
#References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)
#An External Links section is not to be added freely, Any External Links should ideally be incorporated as references in accordance with guidelines given in WP:EL and cited appropriately if they are thought to be useful. This renders their inclusion in any External Links section unecessary.
#In-text External Links should also be avoided in accordance with WP:EL, with any being converted into references and cited accordingly.
 DDStretch  (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment Report 

message: Hello,
I'd like to propose that the articles for Grappenhall and Thelwall be merged. The value of such a merge would be that it would make it possible to cleanly add an infobox with map on the page: such an infobox would include population statistics which are only available for Grappenhall and Thelwall togother, as a civil parish. Also, much of the information in the Thelwall article applies to the whole parish. I think that a little bit of rewriting would allow information on the individual villages to read well in the whole article.
The page would be called "Grappenhall and Thelwall", with redirects from the original articles. The page would also then include an infobox which greatly improves the appearence of the article. See Stockton Heath for an example of the infobox.
If there are no objections, I'd be happy to make the proposed merge. Robnpov 19:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Please go ahead with the merger, we need more volunteers like you! Cheers! xC | ☎  12:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this merge likely to take place any time soon?  I would like to add some content to both pages, but will refrain until after the merger if it is likely to occur over the coming weeks.RickCraig 15:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add more content to both pages. Itis a pity tyhat this proposal came at this time, as it may have acted to discourage people from adding to the two articles, thus illustrating that the proposal should not be accepted.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree Two places shouldn't be merged simply because they are close or because one can't find information on them individually, this just confuses the issue for one looking for specific information. In areas where they do share a common history, etc. (like being part of the same parish) it might be better to link to a common page.LaudanumCoda 01:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree The two places are distinct. The civil parish is a distinct conceptual entity. The reasons given by LaudanumCoda also apply.    DDStretch  (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree -  Keep both, as per above discussion. Bearian 00:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal