Talk:Sutton High Street

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 January 2014. The result of the discussion was keep.

A fact from Sutton High Street appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 March 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Sutton High Street is the site of the pub where the Rolling Stones were spotted by a music promoter in 1963?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sutton High Street.

Wikipedia

Highways: United Kingdom Low‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways 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.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force.

London C‑class Low‑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
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brasserie Vacherin[edit]

Charlesdrakew: The mention has been made about Brasserie Vacherin because of the mention that has been made by The Good Food Guide. If restaurants are noted like that in independent reliable sources then of course they should be mentioned in the article. Obviously, other stuff exists is never an argument but take a look at Bray, Berkshire#Restaurants - that holds an entire section dedicated to its cuisine. I think a sentence is justified.--Laun chba ller 18:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a restaurant guide and it still looks like a promo to me.--Charles (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for Bray it is remarkable that one village has half the Michelin 3 star places in Britain so I guess that does need to be covered. Good Food Guide covers 1300 establishments and is much less notable. There is also the question of recentism since chefs come and go and quality can change quickly, so we should not really get involved with the subject.--Charles (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pedestrianisation[edit]

A P Monblat: Does it say in any of your books when Sutton High Street was pedestrianised?--Laun chba ller 11:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not cover this specific point in my books, but I know from from my own knowledge that it was done in two main phases in the mid 1980s. (The short far north section was done earlier but that does not really count as it only about 100 yards worth.)--A P Monblat (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information available here.--Laun chba ller 20:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found this myself earlier, but I don't like it - it overstresses the 1970s and makes it sound like a 10 year programme. (Separately it is misleading in its very bold and unqualified statement about the loss of Victorian houses. In truth, there is still plenty of Victorian and Edwardian housing around of various sizes.)--A P Monblat (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Davey2010: It seems a pure waste to get rid of all the images, is it worth listing the removed ones as a gallery or is there any policy which says that's not a bad idea.--Laun chba ller 08:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Image use policy says galleries should only be used for limited specific purposes, not for a subject in general. You can make a linked page of selected images on Commons distinct from the Commons category if you wish. The page should have a link to Commons in any case.--Charles (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the images, as far as I'm aware, had captions explaining their relevance. The images that were removed were as follows:

Old postcard of Sutton, showing the then railway station. The adjacent High Street buildings remain to this day (see photo below).
One of the non-pedestrianised sections of Sutton High Street, at the station end (cf.old postcard photo above.)
Bank and gastro-pub in the Sutton High St Conservation Area
Around the midpoint of Sutton High St.
View of Sutton High St showing the Sutton Heritage Mosaic
High Street junction with Sutton Court Road/Grove Rd
Typical pedestrianised area scene
Period commercial architecture in the High Street above coffee bar

I'm going to see if any could align to a specific section and then work from there.--Laun chba ller 11:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that the buses section is going to be reduced to about three lines of text in line with most settlement articles which will remove a lot of space. It was way too cluttered to begin with.--Charles (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I think of that idea! Me and Davey are in agreement that what is there now is quite satisfactory. Although I will say there is only one image I plan on using for the whole Transport section. That is in its rightful place.--Laun chba ller 17:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO you dont need so many images going down the article like that & some are not worth showing at all, We have the Commons link so would take readers to the images anyway, Thanks -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that. I think roughly about one to two images per level 2 section. Some of the images that are there now, however, shouldn't be where they are (in my opinion).--Laun chba ller 17:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've reordered them. How's it looking now?--Laun chba ller 18:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer: I agree with Davey. Good work.--A P Monblat (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Litter[edit]

A P Monblat: Where would the information here be best placed?--Laun chba ller 11:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer to be honest I really don't think this is worth covering at all. If the article covers every bit of local news, all the long term notable stuff will get swamped by non-notable current tit-bits. As it stands the article is really good just now. I would leave it be until there is something fundamental to add.--A P Monblat (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth covering per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism. And why address this question to a single editor when this page is for all to edit?--Charles (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He edits a lot of other Sutton-based articles. He's often my first port of call for such articles. That said, if course other editors can weigh in.--Laun chba ller 21:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sutherland House[edit]

The above section seems to be off topic as it is in Brighton road. It might find a place in the town article, but should be removed from thisSovalValtos (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]