Talk:Mitcham

Category:Towns in Surrey

I've added this category again because I know Mitcham is still thought of by many residents and former residents as a town of Surrey, and because its postal address still lists it as being in Surrey.

I understand what you are saying and this has been discussed on here before. However, this is an encyclopedia and needs to be based on current facts and not POV in order to be credible. I would suggest as a compromise removing the category but mentioning somewhere in the article that historically Mitcham was in Surrey. MRSC 11:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, fair play.Hiding 12:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Map

The Wikimapia link seems to be for the wrong place? Not sure where Swanley-Hextable is but it's certainly nowhere near Mitcham. ;/

Mitcham Town Centre

Mitcham Town Centre is currently a short stub, and should probably be redirected to Mitcham although this article currently lacks information about the centre and it's unclear whether it is either a shopping centre as a building or just a town centre. —Snigbrook 22:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mitcham, London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222202755/http://data.london.gov.uk/2011-census-ward-pop to http://data.london.gov.uk/2011-census-ward-pop

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mitcham, London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426101503/http://www.merton.gov.uk/history/makingmerton.htm to http://www.merton.gov.uk/history/makingmerton.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Mitcham, London → Mitcham – Mitcham already redirects here and there's a separate disambiguation page, so I see no point why this is called "Mitcham, London" instead of just "Mitcham". CastleCapt (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes there's no point in having the base name redirect per WP:UKPLACE and WP:PRECISION, views[[1]] might show a primary topic (if others are named after this one) but anyway this has been a stable primary topic even after the move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - considering there are so many more entries on the DAB related to Australia, I think this move leads to confusion. Page views for the last year don't indicate that the London subject is dominantly primary nor should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I'd support move Mitcham (disambiguation) to primary instead. -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure? When I look at page views analysis it is pretty clear that this article is much more popular compared to the second highest "Mitcham, South Australia". The Australian article has had a spike in Nov/Dec 2019 but it seems to be an anomaly. Mitcham London currently gets almost 6x more views, and without counting the spike in Oct 2019, got as much as 8x more at this point last year. That rings primary to me. --CastleCapt (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Rather than simply being "more popular" than any one other topic, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC recommends the it should be "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined". I do agree the London topic is the most popular, but due to all the other options available, I don't see it as more popular than all of them combined. I'm not basing this on raw page views alone... seeing that others topics have in the past for brief periods been close to parity with the London topic leads me to think that in the long-term we are better off keeping them all disambiguated. -- Netoholic @ 08:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The point is to serve WP searchers best. If occasionally a topic is not more popular than all others combined, but usually is, then searchers are best served by having that topic’s article at the base name in question. —-В²C ☎ 22:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The page view stats provided by Netoholic suggests that the place in London meets the criterion "more likely than all the other topics combined". There is nothing else which otherwise suggests that the other topics, even if combined, may rival the London topic in significance. feminist ^{Wear a mask to protect everyone} 02:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary topic per Netaholic. I don’t see, nor can I imagine, a coherent oppose argument based on policy or conventions. —В²C ☎ 08:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

---

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.