Talk:Polmont

Polmont Bank[edit]

The area that is referred to in the citation as Polmont bank is at Gransable cemetery on the western limits of Polmont. Polmont Bank is the area from the Beancross up to Gransable cemetery and ends at the cross-roads. The Shopping centre is located about 1.5 miles to the east of this and, given the size of Polmont, this is a relatively massive distance. Therefore I feel it would be inappropriate to call the shopping area Polmont Bank.

The area in which Polmont Shopping Centre is located is Polmont Bank, as the shops themselves are located on the area which Polmont Bank house used to stand. This would be like disputing the names of Polmont Park, Erskine or Millfield.

Then please site your statement regarding Polmont Bank House, not Polmont Bank area in general, which incidently is quite a distance from the said Shopping centre.

Believe it or not, Polmont Bank House was called Polmont Bank House because it was located in Polmont Bank. The house of Polmont Bank was situated on the current car park of the Co-op supermarket, so I think that should be conclusive enough that the area is Polmont Bank, whether or not the council and such like refer to it as Polmont Shopping Centre or whatever. The shopping centre is in Polmont Bank. If you can be bothered, feel free to browse around the internet and disprove me.

It is not a case of disproving you, but more a case of you proving that it is truthful and accurate, otherwise it is not worthy of Wikipedia

Village?[edit]

Is Polmont a village? I would have said either large village or small town. What is it most commonly referred to as in sources? --Mais oui! 18:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think to be a town a settlement needs a sizable town centre. Although Polmont has a population of approaching 6000 it has very limited shops and businesses on its main drag and it feels much more 'village like'. It's certainly seen as a village locally. 'Large village' would be a more suitable description I think. Broxi (UTC)

Officially, Polmont is a village of two villages, Polmont and Old Polmont. I agree that it is a large village in terms of area, but it is still relatively sparsely populated. There is only one small shopping unit in the region, which is not town-worthy. City status would be nice, though. JohnJohnJohnJohn 14:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Lothian[edit]

I've not heard of any plans or desires to transfer any part of Falkirk council area to West Lothian. Are there any sources that can be cited for this? Broxi 23:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal was that the eastern side of Polmont would transfer from Falkirk Council to West Lothian Council, which I talked over with two local councillors. The plans were shelved back in around 2002, so it would appear to be a dead duck. I'll look for sources in the mean time, however. JohnJohnJohnJohn 14:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polmont Clean-up[edit]

Can we please stop the nonsense with this article please, this should be informational only, not political or comical. Thankyou.)TheNarcisiusofPolmont

Clearly many of the edits to this article are an amusing aside for one person and his many sockpuppets. Fraslet 17:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

The History section is terrible. Can anyone improve it? If not I'll have a go at some point. --TomAIUK 13:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it - John

Agree with John regarding the appalling history section. The statement that 'nothing has been written of the early history of Polmont' is incorrect. A history that includes Polmont and the related area is covered in an article published in Calatria published by Falkirk Local History Society. It is titled 'The Barony of Abbotskerse' and appears in Calatria No. 10 (Winter 1996)which can be found in most of the local libraries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur's o'on (talk • contribs) 12:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Polmont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]