Hi, and Welcome to Killingworth,
|WikiProject UK geography||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|This article is written in British English which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, realise, aeroplane), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
I have added some photos and information onto the Killingworth Page and hope to keep adding further history, links and photos as I go along, as I am only new to this, I hope to include some old photos too from the old buildings around Killingworth.
--Killingworth 10:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I have proposed the merger between Killingworth and Killingworth Village because they appear to be about the same place, with different names. Please discuss. -Royalguard11Talk 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Merge
Hi, You have requested a merger of Killingworth and Killingworth Village.
They are infact 2 different places.
Killingworth Village is on the outskirts of Killingworth but is not the same place. I dont think it would make much difference if they were merged but this would make the co-ordinates, history and pictures incorrect.
- If they are not the same place, then there is no need to merge. Remove the merge template if you like. No one else seems to have an opinion on the matter, so it is safe to say you can remove them. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- They are different places, so I don't think merging would be the right way to go. johnwalton (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Replace with Disambig Page?
Killingworth, UK is not more notable (or if it is, it isn't to any significant extent) than Killingworth, Connecticut. Both are small towns of roughly the same size. Killingworth, Connecticut isn't named after Killingworth, North Tyneside, and, in fact, predates it by 300 years. There's already a Killingworth disambig page, and I think it makes sense to have Killingworth go directly to that.188.8.131.52 07:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted some changes made by User:Lfstevens which I think change the meaning of the article, or else are introducing American English into a British English article. The original edits were in good faith and meant to be constructive, so if anyone disagrees please discuss it here.
- "there is no recorded evidence for" was "no evidence survives of" - Morrison makes the point that any evidence has been destroyed or covered up, in other words the evidence may still survive but we have no record of it.
- "falling to" (original "though that had fallen to") - I've left this, but is a continuous tense really applicable to two points where there is no evidence of the intermediate statistics?
- "kept as common land" was "kept common" - I've reverted this; common land is a precise legal term, kept as common is not. This may be a US/UK difference; common land tenure is rooted in the common law of England dating back to "time immemorial".
- "story" or "storey" - the OED is ambivalent about this giving both forms for a floor of a building. Most authors quoted in the OED seem to equate "story" with a tale and "storey" with buildings. This also may be a US/UK issue. I've reverted to "storey" in part to keep coherence with "multi-storey".
- "which" versus "that" in para 1 of section Town centre - Thomson & Martinet in A Practical English Grammar (OUP) prefer the use of "which" as the subject of a relative clause, particularly in formal English. Yet again I suspect a Transatlantic rift here.
- Blucher "replacements". I've reworded this, Geordie did not just replace Blucher but used the experience to build locomotives for use on other colliery lines.
- "it was to be widely" or "it was widely" - I've reverted this. At the time in question (1815) no safety lamps were in use, let alone widely. I would suggest that it needs to be future in the past rather than an imperfect.