Talk:Bridgeton, Glasgow

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge proposal edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I propose that Bridgeton Cross be merged into Bridgeton, Glasgow.

Some of the information is duplicated, and the stuff that isn't would be a welcome addition to the main article (in its own section, I would suggest). Obviously the cross is the focal point of the area but I don't see the need for it to have its own article when the main page for the area is quite weak, and features the umbrella in both of its images. Crowsus (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I support your proposal, dividing the information over two articles is pointless, the Cross is clearly the most significant part of Bridgeton, and as you suggest, can be best covered with its own section in a combined article. Jellyman (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Agree. Although I'm relatively new to editing, the Cross article doesn't appear to have any weight of its own, other than a few particular details; it would make more sense for those to be included on the main Bridgeton article. — MouldyFox (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic