This article is within the scope of WikiProject Worcestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Worcestershire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WorcestershireWikipedia:WikiProject WorcestershireTemplate:WikiProject WorcestershireWorcestershire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
in response to your edit summaries: The information is being kept rather than deleted. Look at a map, note the names. Then look at a 19thC map. Astley Cross, was literally just that crossroads. Astley Cross is part of the parish of Astley. See this map where Astley Cross is within the bounds of the parish, in the top right corner. Can you please stop blocking this without direct evidence that there is enough coverage of Astley Cross to warrant its own article rather than this merge. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Astley Cross" is in Astley, but it looks like it refers to the houses nearby, which are in the parish of Stourport, and were in Areley Kings before the parishes were merged. —Snigbrook 20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it probably isn't notable enough for an article, but it is unclear where it should be merged to (I would expect it to be in Astley because of the name, but if it is then it looks like there are no buildings there, except possibly one or two houses that are on the boundary. —Snigbrook 21:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) What's silly about that? The fact is that Astley Cross can, for different purposes, be defined as being part of Astley or of Areley Kings or of Stourport, so redirecting to any of them does the reader - remember that person who is looking for information on Astley Cross - a gross disservice. Please do give up with the edit warring and concentrate on building an encyclopedia that gives our readers the information they are looking for. By all means let's have links to the surrounding villages and towns in the article, but if a reader asks for information on Astley Cross then that is what we should give. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's information about it on the redirect target, then what's the problem? There is no substantial information to give a reader. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 22:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the fourteen words in the one sentence of this stub, that couldn't be expanded in the two years since its creation, it's not worth the two thousand that have been spent bickering about it. I would say merge without a doubt, whatever the outcome of the debate was, or let those in defence of keeping it also do something about expanding it. Bigger places have been merged in the past. --Kudpung (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely oppose a merge, its a separate village. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want words expended on bickering then why bring this up again? If you want this merged then find some evidence from reliable sources that say that it should be merged to one of the possible targets rather than any of the others. And why on earth shouldn't an encyclopedia article consist of fourteen words? If those fourteen words can tell readers looking up Astley Cross what it is then that's far better than sending them to some other article where they have to read through loads of text about other places to find the information. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
