Talk:SE postcode area

districts are also split into two alphabetical tranches

This needs explanation. It sounds impressive but doesn't convey meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is hopefully clearer now. MRSC (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

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 following centralised discussion, WP:UKPOSTAL was adopted, merge all into SE postcode area. -- MRSC (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

---

• London SE28
• London SE22‎
• London SE24
• London SE16
• London SE13
• London SE6‎

I've redirected these stubs here as they contain little substantive content that is not in this article. I'd be interested in any rationale for not doing that. MRSC (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice Rumping (talk · contribs) has reverted these redirects, recreating the stub articles with edit summary "substantive content clearly verifiable". I would like to outline my rationale for undoing this action, and for redirecting these here:

1. These particular postcode districts, relating to suburban locations in London, are not, in themselves, notable.
2. Thamesmead, East Dulwich, Herne Hill, Rotherhithe, Lewisham, Catford etc. are all notable as localities and that is why we have articles for them.
3. Our coverage of postal administration should not be organised with articles of pseudo-localities based on postcode districts. It is unnecessary duplication of the locality articles.
4. The SE postcode area article already exists and contains all the information duplicated in these articles: District coverage, Local authorities, Maps, details of areas, streets and features.

I cannot see any rationale for retaining these stubs and I propose to redirect them back to this article. MRSC (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - there seems to be some mindset here that stubs are bad, they are not. They are simply articles awaiting expansion, and in this case they are perfectly good articles. The table on the SE postcode area already looks terrible and overcrowded and should probably be removed ASAP in favour of these individual articles. Jeni ^(talk) 11:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you detail what information would be detailed in these articles that is not already contained in SE postcode area article? We need a rationale for creating these articles and none has been put forward. MRSC (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: - Rather than have sparse discussions on these articles spread across Wikipedia, I have suggested centralised discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Input requested: SE postcode area Jeni ^(talk) 12:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Redirecting to a centralised discussion, that encourages avoidance of a "one size fits all" policy is counter-intuitive and disrupts the individual merge discussions. MRSC (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge centralising individual post code stubs creates a substantional article; and avoids duplication of basic information about post codes. Post codes are merely a comment on the organisation of postal delivery, they contain no substantive information about the administration of districts - nor should they - since it is an unrelated subject. Kbthompson (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Defer until a common guideline has been agreed for UK postcode districts articles either all to be merged into sections within the articles about their postcode area, or all to be kept (and named consistently). — Richardguk (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2010 (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.

SE28

I've changed the entry from calved out of SE2 to calved out of existing districts as a comparison of this and this indicates some of SE18 was also used. MRSC (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

SE9 - What?

Does anyone know what is meant by "Sidcup (small parts for 2012)" in the area for SE9? With no reference for what this means, I am going to delete this. If you disagree, please state why - happy for it to be restored if it makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.179.90 (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

SE1

Which parts of SE1 are in the City of London? Crookesmoor (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Puzzles me as well. Is it perhaps London Bridge? - which is wholly in the City, including the south end?, while the postcode maps show the SE1 area extending to the north side of the river. But the only two buildings entered from the southern bridge approach, nos 1 and 2 London Bridge (which have SE1 addresses), are surely in the administrative Borough of Southwark. Similarly, the northern halves of several other bridges are in the City, but in SE1! --John O'London (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)