![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the debate was no move. -- Kjkolb 10:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Whitworth Gardens → Sackville Gardens – It has been known as Sackville Gardens since it was refurbished in 2005.
Please rename this, it has been officially called Sackville Gardens for 10 years now, the council acknowledges this at their page http://www.manchester.gov.uk/directory_record/89292/sackville_gardens/category/301/all_parks_playgrounds_and_open_spaces
Oh come on! WHY is this page still under the wrong name? Clearly the people who refuse to change it have never actually been to the gardens? The gate to the gardens actually has "Sackville Gardens" written on it in metal lettering, and there is a huge official sign welcoming people to "Sackville Gardens" also. Refusing to change it to its current name is just being stubborn. Should we change the page for Sri Lanka back to Ceylon while we're at it?
This was way more images than an article like this needs. I pared it down to: best of three panoramas (shows park layout, others show a gate and a building); good 3/4 view of statue; close-up of plaque; and beacon. The rest can go in a gallery, where they at least won't interfere with reading the article. The present spacing of the photographs still looks good when I resize my browser as if on a smaller screen. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Turing's codes? Of course THEy wouldn't be relevant to anything. They were, in fact, the German's codes... and the fact that Turing helped crack them is... well... who cares? Too much information, like too many pictures, is a BAD thing... plus.. making people THINK possibly??? Vote a big NO to anything like that
I reverted User:Info-is-bad's attempt at moving the page to Sackville Street Gardens. Mostly because it wasn't properly moved, but also because it appears to be against consensus. Is the consensus still that this is where it belongs? -- Alynna 00:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the debate was no move. -- Kjkolb 10:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Whitworth Gardens → Sackville Gardens – It has been known as Sackville Gardens since it was refurbished in 2005.
Please rename this, it has been officially called Sackville Gardens for 10 years now, the council acknowledges this at their page http://www.manchester.gov.uk/directory_record/89292/sackville_gardens/category/301/all_parks_playgrounds_and_open_spaces
Oh come on! WHY is this page still under the wrong name? Clearly the people who refuse to change it have never actually been to the gardens? The gate to the gardens actually has "Sackville Gardens" written on it in metal lettering, and there is a huge official sign welcoming people to "Sackville Gardens" also. Refusing to change it to its current name is just being stubborn. Should we change the page for Sri Lanka back to Ceylon while we're at it?
This was way more images than an article like this needs. I pared it down to: best of three panoramas (shows park layout, others show a gate and a building); good 3/4 view of statue; close-up of plaque; and beacon. The rest can go in a gallery, where they at least won't interfere with reading the article. The present spacing of the photographs still looks good when I resize my browser as if on a smaller screen. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Turing's codes? Of course THEy wouldn't be relevant to anything. They were, in fact, the German's codes... and the fact that Turing helped crack them is... well... who cares? Too much information, like too many pictures, is a BAD thing... plus.. making people THINK possibly??? Vote a big NO to anything like that
I reverted User:Info-is-bad's attempt at moving the page to Sackville Street Gardens. Mostly because it wasn't properly moved, but also because it appears to be against consensus. Is the consensus still that this is where it belongs? -- Alynna 00:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)