Talk:Sydenham, London

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Savacentre

Savacentre (For that, dear Wikipedians, is what it is and forever will be known as) - the largest Sainsburys in the UK? Are you sure? Anecdotally the Wimbledon (Colliers Wood) one is bigger... 79.69.130.13 (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to the punch! I'm fairly sure Becktons Savacentre/"really big Sainsbury's" is bigger than ours as well.

In any case, its unreferenced, so ought to be removed. Any objections? Doctorbob (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

This page has just been reverted (which I have reversed) for a copyvio without explanation. Perhaps the offending parts could be pointed out so that a proper rewrite/removal can happen without destroying quite a bit of good article. --Regan123 00:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history section was copied from http://www.sydenham.org.uk/ and http://www.sydenham.org.uk/history.html, and the owner of the website complained (OTRS ticket #2007012710001442). Wikipedia's policy for dealing with copyvios is to revert to the last pre-copyvio version, or to delete the page if there is no version that is not a copyvio. --Carnildo 01:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the original work. I am sorry Wikipedia has chosen to remove the version that appeared here. As part of my commitment to the community it is free for use by non-commercial organisations such as Wikipedia (see terms of use on our website). However Wikipedia granted it a GNU licence and will not publish without one. This breaks the original copyright/attribution conditions. I feed my family by selling my work to commercial organisations so I hope you will understand. Especially as the reason I found this was because of commercial exploitation of this work by others. Hopefully one day that Wikipedia may revise its policy so I can contribute directly myself. Best wishes - Stuart - PS Regan I would be delighted to discuss this further in our Forum.

Bob Monkhouse

This entry claims Bob Monkhouse was "born and bred in Mayow Road". This contradicts the Wikipedia entry for Bob Monkhouse which says he was born in Beckenham. There has been a discussion which favours the Beckenham claim on the basis that it is given in the Dictionary of National Biography. The discussion is here: http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2039

Also you may wish to add an entry for http://sydenham.tv (note I am the author).

Brainsys (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wyman

Penge claims Bill Wyman (and backs the claim with a reference). Bebofpenge (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Sydenham reference is taken from his auto-biography. - Wyman, Bill (1990). Stone Alone. Viking. p. 41. ISBN 0-670-82894-7. User:jm6852 —Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Sydenham is the main area of Sydenham which the Sydenham Road or Sydenham High Street by locals and is the main shopping area.

This does not make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation required

Several places, all important in their own right, share a name with this Sydenham. As such, Sydenham (disambiguation) should be moved here, and this article moved elsewhere. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Sydenham is the primary topic, receiving far more traffic than the disambiguation page, or any other Sydenham. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this Sydenham is a community/electoral ward of a larger city. It belongs at Sydenham, London, or at Sydenham (electoral ward). There is no primary topic except for Britain, and all of these discussions stink of nationalism. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can make any accusations of nationalism when all your discussions start on pages with names shared by towns in your area. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Sydenham was the first and biggest is Sydenham in the world to be named after Thomas Sydenham, additionally all other Sydenham's were named after it, to therefore it is slightly more important than any other. If we move this article should we move London to London, England? or Croydon to Croydon, London? just because there are other places in the world with the same name? Also to call anything nationalism on this page is garbage.Likelife (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose for all and any of the oppose comments above. I am further suggesting, due to evidence and comments elsewhere, that this sudden proposal that concerns several major UK cities among which are featured articles, has been made for reasons that do not concern the neutrality of our encyclopdia. --Kudpung (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this discussion is premature due an ongoing policy discussion on policy that has not yet been resolved. --Kudpung (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They can be initiated independently. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. One can also wonder why, and why in sudden batches. The comments and/or possibly misplaced nationalistic assumptions by some users on other talk pages have been noticed.--Kudpung (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm quite supportive of having disambig pages in some cases (Newport for a start), but this isn't one of them. This really is the primary topic whichever way you look at it. Page views, population and history all seem to be on the side of keeping this one right where it is. The indiscriminate nature of the entries on Sydenham (disambiguation) is another good reason not to make it the main page. Railway stations and schools in towns with the name, a college, a hospital, a non-notable suburb of Leamington Spa and places like Sydenham, Gauteng or Sydenham, Oxfordshire just don't cut it. With page views like this - less than 10% of this page's total I just can't see a case for this page not being the primary topic. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with this neutral and level-headed reply. It is true that I overstepped by trying to move Sydenham. The fact remains that it's the exact same users opposing for the exact same reasoning at every single move requested, including ones where there just is not a primary topic (Plymouth being the biggest example). There is no solid reasoning behind most of these opposes, just a natural knee-jerk reaction to a perceived attack against Britain or British places (the fact is that no other countries have examples of primary topics that are debatable). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is frivolous time-wasting to make a point. No case for moving has been presented. GyroMagician (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per the discussions at Talk:Plymouth, Talk:Peterborough, Talk:Cornwall, Talk:Cambridge, Talk:York (amongst others) and village pump which Floydian also created. Creating such proposals en masse is a misuse of the process, bringing more heat than light and counts as apparent lobbying. Fæ (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per discussions elsewhere. Alzarian16 nailed it. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there should be a policy against this sort of mass-move operations. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (guideline) which is directly referenced in Five pillars point 4 (principles) and consequently falls under Civility (policy). Fæ (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for those that choose to be ignorant despite multiple people telling them multiple times that this is neither a disruption nor a pointy campaign. It's an attempt to balance what some believe is an imbalance. There is also WP:AGF to instruct others not to assume that there is bad intent in users actions. If anything, the constant complaining into the motive of these discussions, rather than the discussion itself, is disrupting and pointy. Thanks, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Who are the "some" that you refer to? Obviously they are not representing a consensus here. I do not believe that anyone has explained why this is not a campaign or pointy. Fæ (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not refering to a "some". The "multiple" I am refering to are spread across the various other discussions where you've repeated this assertion again and again. I do not need to, nor will I, bother to explain why this isn't pointy. It's a choice, maybe one where I picked an option too many, but I stand by that choice. You can assume good faith or you can go take it to ANI. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Please re-read this thread, you appear to be mistaken. I have clarified Joshua Issac's point as to which policy would be relevant. I made my opinion once, not "again and again". I want to make this completely clear, I have never made assumptions as to your motives and in fact have corrected other editors in other discussions when they made such assumptions about your move requests. I cannot express my opinion on a different article and then expect it to somehow apply to all the other move discussions you have raised, perhaps you know a way of doing such a thing? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sydenham, London please

Sydenham in London is roughly the same population as Sydenham, Victoria and Sydenham, New South Wales and hence it makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER to have Sydenham as an article about 1 and the other 2, of roughly equal population and importance, having to have sub articles. The disambig article should be moved here and this should be a separate article at Sydenham, London.

The Victoria Sydenham is important as it is also the name of a train line and is host to the Watergardens shopping centre, and the New South Wales one has similar importance.

The only reason that this London one gets more traffic is people who want to look at one of the two Australian articles yet are forced here for some unfounded reason. All 3 articles are of EQUAL IMPORTANCE and should be treated as such. Please move. 203.4.164.1 (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Future

This consists only of a link to http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/inmyarea/regeneration/sydenham/Pages/Sydenham-high-street-regeneration.aspx, which is now a dead link. Wouldn't it be better to remove this section, at least until more content is available on future plans, rather than relying solely on an external link?

Sydenham, London?

I think I've had a change of heart with the name here... Even though its the largest and oldest Sydenham, I think Sydenham, London maybe sensible. Likelife (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sydenham (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]