Talk:Sutton, London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I would suggest that if it doesn't grow within 24 hours (you listed it for deletion 3 minutes after creation), that it be changed to a redirect to London Borough of Sutton Markalex 17:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Is Shopping in Sutton notable? I think not... 17:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sutton, the town, vs London Borough of Sutton[edit]

I notice that there is confusion between the two in this article. For example, Education and Parks are, incorrectly, covering the Borough. I personally agree that the sections on shops and shopping need removing - they aren't appropriate. -Rodge500 08:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The confusion often arises between references to the borough and the eponymous central area of a borough. Generally, it needs someone with local knowledge to fix it. I've moved education. Some info on shopping centres is appropriate, individual businesses names, not usually - unless they are otherwise notable in some way (like it being where the store started). So that should be removed. There should be a Sutton parks and open spaces article (... and there is). I'll try to fix a few things when I do a navigation template for the borough.
The borough article is extraordinarily thin and any contributions would be welcomed. Kbthompson 09:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I've done what I can, for the moment. It still needs to be trimmed for content (some is repetitive), and a greater focus (on the town centre). HTH. Kbthompson 10:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Today" section[edit]

I have removed the reference to "gamboling dens and gay bars" in relation to Sutton's nightlife. Gamboling dens sound delightful but i am not aware of the existence of any of these (or even gambling dens) Likewise I am not aware of the existence of any gay bars in the area. Obviously if anyone can prove likewise then please re-instate the relevant parts. Deckchair 13:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


I've removed

" There has also been a significant rise in criminality in recent years, especially since 24 hour bar licenses were introduced in 2005 [citation needed]. In response to this changing shift in demographics the Metropolitan Police have chosen Sutton as the location for a new central police station which is currently the largest in south London. Since this explosion of club culture in Sutton, Sutton has acquired a somewhat dubious reputation[citation needed]."

This is at best specuation - at worst totally false

Stats on sutton crime rates

FYI There are no more nightclubs in sutton then there were in 2004

It would be better in my opinion to say...

"There has been a significent investment in suttons nightclubs in recent years"

"Suttons police station is the largest in south london" Davelane (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Today Section revisited[edit]

The today section is still really pants - i think I will rewrite it totaly --Davelane (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

But the wonderful picture of pavement and gutter in Throwley Way raises the whole tone of the article. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


I am tempted to delete the education section as at current we have one un-cited "fact", and one single line stating that there are primary schools in the area. Removing the uncited text leaves us with very little worth keeping. Any thoughts? Deckchair (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


Although there are a variety of ways to describe suburban locations, there is nothing to preclude describing them as towns, especially if that is used in published sources. MRSC (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It now forms a significant civic and retail district.[edit]

Too POV to be encyclopedic. Reads like the borough's PR-department. If it is significant, say why (though I doubt it is - no-one's heard of it).


These need improving. A shot of a bus tells you nothing specific about the town. The shot of Asda needs to be balanced by one or two photos of town-specific points of interest such as the two wall-mosaics and the millenium dial just outside Waterstones. It would be great if someone who knows how to could upload these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A P Monblat (talkcontribs) 18:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo heavy sections[edit]

Both the "economy" and "culture" sections are now photo heavy. I would suggest at least one photo from each section be removed. Deckchair (talk) 09:48, 3 October P2012 (UTC)

Culture OK, one removed from economySovalValtos (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
That suggestion was made when the word count was lower. It is no longer necessary to remove this photo; also. the images have just been reduced in size. A P Monblat (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Population figure[edit]

This needs to include more wards such as Belmont and Stonecot - A P Monblat (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


It seems most unlikely that a turnpike road was "constructed" in 1755, rather than embodied or some such. But if it was constructed we need a cit.SovalValtos (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Confusion with twins[edit]

There may be more confusion between the town and the borough in this page. Minden seems to be twinned with the borough. Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf (from the former Wilmersdorf) is possibly now twinned with the borough. Some good citations are needed to clear any muddle on this and associated pages.SovalValtos (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I have redrafted to take account of this. A P Monblat (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Heritage mural pic[edit]

I am attempting to process the current close-up pic by manipulating it in a photo editor so that it seems to be seen head on. Just be warned I am a beginner at this, so there may be much wrong. I will re upload it. SovalValtos (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent work! Well done. A P Monblat (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Image Bloat[edit]

There are too many photos in the article. Four of one building and others duplicates of images in derived articles. I have found it safest to allow others to add images I have taken, rather than do it myself. Temptation has not always been resisted! SovalValtos (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You're probably right - I have removed two already and will look for one or two more. But it should be noted that I have added images of notable subjects by other photographers when possible. It is just that many of the photos on Wikimedia and Geograph are relatively random shots, while the key sites are left unphotographed - perhaps there is the (incorrect) assumption that someone else must surely have photographed them already. A P Monblat (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

London Plan[edit]

All areas in London have their status in the London Plan identified, in particular the "metropolitan centres", of which Sutton is one. Both for consistency and notability, this needs to be added back, imho. It is actually a key plan about London's future development, complete with its own detailed wikipedia article. A P Monblat (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Another link?[edit]

Might this be useable as a link on one or other of the Sutton pages? SovalValtos (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

'Iconic fountain' Manor Park[edit]

At the time of writing there are 3 (THREE) pictures of the Manor Park fountain - and another 4 in a separate Manor Park article!

It's not 'iconic' in the normally accepted meaning of the word, it's rather prosaic in fact. So why so much coverage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The source described the fountain as iconic. However, it is not essential to use the word in the article, so I shall delete it. A P Monblat (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed too many images that do not improve, but rather clutter this article. Commons is the place for most of them. The one in the info box of the fountain would suffice and then just one of the war memorial in the green spaces section. Much of the text should be removed as the linked page covers the topic. SovalValtos (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

article length[edit]

There is a real issue of article length. The main article does not need to cover everything especially when that detail is found in other articles. I feel that the article is excessively padded out when detail can easily be found in other articles. Refer WP:LENGTH. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)