Merger edit
"rv...should not have been merged without discussion" Fine, discuss. So far I see (by seperate editors) one attempt to delete the article, one tagging it with {{tl:importance}}, and one merging it. I also see one editor reverting a merger and saying it must stay without providing any reasons. Honestly the best approach is to merge this not particularly notable place but to leave a category membership in place so that it still appears in the category tree. Discuss. --kingboyk 19:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- It seems legitimate to argue that articles such as this are analogous to articles for census designated places in the US (see Collier Manor-Cresthaven, Florida, for example). As such, it is appropriate to keep them as seperate articles and let them grow (just as has been done with with census designated places) rather than merging them into the larger areas of which they are part. Beyond this, I firmly believe that page merges should always occur only after at least an attempt at discussion -- if we do not have processes like this, arbitrariness is likley to result. Quepasahombre 23:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not proposing to delete it mate, and I would have left the category membership in place :) It's just that as it stands it's a weak article and it would be better for both articles if there were mergers. That wouldn't prevent a split later if more material were to become available. Honestly, is this is a good article as it stands? Anyway, we've both had our say let's see if anyone else wants to chip in. --kingboyk 23:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I lived in Filton (Charborough Road)for many years and, although the shops area around the former Cabot Cinema (later Fine fare Supermarket) were known locally as 'Filton Park' (I'm nipping up Filton Park, Mum), but the Midland Bank and the Post Office were described as the 'Northville' branches.
So where does the name 'Filton Park' come from? There never was a Filton Park (ie attached to a manor or other large residence) so far as I know. Neither, it seems, was this is a postal area. One story I've heard is that 'Filton Park Estates' was a housing development of the triangle of land bounded by Braemar Avenue, Southmead Road and Gloucester Road North by Sir George White - who's family owned the Bristol Aeroplane Company at Filton - in 1926. The style of housing in Charborough Road and Braemar Avenue is similar to that found elsewhere in the city (Shirehampton for example) and apparently the houses were originally planned for employess either of the Aeroplane Company or of the Bristol Tramways company (which company was also founded by Sir George). Depending on your rank in the company you either got a bay windowed front bedroom or not (don't know if this is true!) Apparently, in the end the land was sold off in packets and developed by local builders - Mr Pullen, Mr Herd, Mr Rillingham and others, - hence the different house styles within the 'estate'
As such I think it should be referenced from a larger Filton article rather than having it's own thread. IMHO Andyb 26 July 2006
I cant believe its even bean suggested to merge such areas. I live in Filton Park and have always described where i live as that not filton as this area is so large and vague.
- If this debate is still going on, my vote is merge into Filton. I don't believe that Filton Park is notable enough for it's own article (see WP:N), and I think that it should be a section within the Filton article. Is there enough information about Filton Park available for the article to ever progress beyond stub status? I don't think there is. Are there any notable events to have happened here or people who have come from here?. If anyone can significanly expand the article I'll happily eat my words. Gasheadsteve 10:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I think a reasonable amount of time has passed, and I make it three votes to two in favour of merging, so I'll go ahead and do it. Gasheadsteve 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)