Talk:Warwick Gates

Merge Proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Warwick. -- Widefox (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Warwick Widefox (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it is in Warwick! Why the Shires is suddenly in Leamington heaven knows! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.210.53 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because it IS in Warwick already. As is the Shires Retail Park, incorrectly cited as being in Leamington Spa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.130.251 (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Warwick Gates is nowhere near Warwick - if anything it should be lumped in with Leamington. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.192.246 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago I would have agreed with you, but I checked my facts. Warwick Gates *is* in Warwick. Look on a map and it makes sense. Google Maps is as good as any. Remember Whitnash is a town in itself, and is part of neither Leamington nor Warwick. Warwick includes Warwick Gates, Heathcote Industrial Estate, Tachbrook Park, Myton Road, The Shires retail park (yes: Sainsburys is in Warwick. Mothercare is in Leamington), the farmland between Europa Way and Myton Road, St. Nick's Park, Emscote Road, Warwick town centre. If you lived in Warwick Gates, your address would be "Warwick Gates, Warwick, CV34 --Ukslim (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way as Sydenham, Warwickshire, Warwick Gates doesn't really meet notability guidelines Wikipedia:Notability_(Places_and_transportation), and there's not enough interesting to write about it, to warrant a page of its own. I believe it should be merged with Leamington Spa or Warwick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukslim (talk • contribs) 14:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the guideline quoted is only a proposal and so should not be used as a basis for making proposals as yet. Keith D (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approve - yes, really these do belong to the town articles. Although it is not a guideline yet, I would already have proposed merging them. Additionally, I consider it sensible to keep Leamington and Warwick articles intact, without breaking-out sub-articles as they are small. Just consider the logic - do we need separate articles for Leamington "Old Town" "New Town" etc etc Widefox (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being from witnash is as bad as Warwick Gates. They are combined like Old/New Town. Keep seperate. 86.164.161.55 (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they are adjacent, but Warwick Gates is not part of Whitnash Widefox (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to encourage everyone to sign in, and let us get consensus on this. Technically Warwick Gates is part of Warwick. This fact is so far undisputed. Widefox (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YES! Warwick gates is definitely in Warwick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.156.95 (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Warwick. It's an important new estate but it is just that, a new estate. I think an important factor is that it was never a stand alone community. Normally when suburbs have their own pages it is because they were once seperate from their parent town/city. Lillington/Leamington Spa and Edgbaston/Birmingham are case points. Cls14 (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.