Talk:Central Croydon

message: There was considerable debate some time ago about having a Croydon page as well as one for the London Borough of Croydon. For an extended period, there was resistance to having two separate articles because 'Croydon' was seen by some as having taken on the sense of the whole borough, rather than its original area. In the end though, two separate articles were created.
Now we have three.
I am not sure how 'central Croydon' differs from 'Croydon' in terms of article subject. In the Croydon article it is clearly talking about central Croydon as its focus, with some acknowledgement that the Croydon identity is strongly felt in neighbouring areas like Addiscombe and Waddon, and to a lesser extent across the borough. A Fairfield, Croydon article now also exists that overlaps with these articles too.
I propose that this should be merged and made a redirect to Croydon, but await further discussion before applying the notice. Martín (saying/doing) 13:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it also occurs to me that 'central Croydon' as a separate entity would in any case be no more notable than 'central Purley' or 'downtown Richmond' or 'central London'. Neighbourhoods need to be here where they can be cited as being notable, distinct and recognised. Martín (saying/doing) 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposal makes sense to me, it's now advertised on this page, and on Croydon - but I think the discuss points there. I think that's all that needs to be done. You may wish to make this a separate para there, but it already duplicates some info in the other page. Kbthompson 15:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Definitely merge. MRSC • Talk 08:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep. I still think that Croydon is a large metropoliton district, and as you said before, that it would be no more notable than Central Purley you were wrong. I mean we all know that Purley is only a small town/district in the borough. Croydon is placed 20th on the retail map out of all the cities and towns. Central London is also very notable, it's a common word if you live in london as you don't say i'm going to London, you say i'm going to Central London. Of course that's not the same in terms of Central Croydon. Anyway this article is completley different from the main one as it is about the entertainment features of Croydon not the geography. So KEEP. Pafcool2 16:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong merge. I think it's excessive to have three articles on Croydon in its various forms - it just creates confusion with nobody really knowing what should be where, and it's no surprise we're in such a mess already. I think there is a case for having one article on the borough and one on the town or centre because the character and history of the central area is quite distinct. The Croydon article already deals with pretty well all the scope of the Central Croydon article.--A bit iffy 09:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge. We've got articles on the town of Croydon and on the London Borough, which one might argue is too many, To have yet another one on "central Croydon" as if this could be separated from the town of Croydon, makes no sense at all. --rossb 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely merge. I have always been against the two articles "Croydon" and "London Borough of Croydon", but to have yet a third article is absurd. "Central Croydon"? Whatever for? Croydon is Croydon is Croydon, a lot of these articles are created to fill up the "baskets" of the editors. You get anomalies such as having two separate lists of well-known people, such as we have in "Croydon" as well as "L. B. of C.". All it leads to is confusion. Dieter Simon 23:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Croydon vs Central Croydon - propose redirect

message: :This item transfered to :Talk:Croydon ...' Kbthompson 23:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In fact, whe have eight articles for Croydon