Talk:Gilesgate Moor

Merger proposal

This is a one (and a bit) line article with little prospect of enlargement. It is a district in close proximity to Gilesgate and considered by some to be part of that area. Propose to merge the text into Gilesgate in its own section and redirect. If at some point in future the section becomes large (which seems unlikely to me), it can be broken out into an article in its own right. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd currently be for keeping the article as is (although persuadable the other way). Main reason - Gilesgate Moor is part of the Belmont civil parish- so is legally and historically distinct from Gilesgate proper, even if the boundaries run together these days. Until 1974 they were part of different district councils and have had a set boundary between the two (at least on the map) since the 1870s (and them based on much older roads). Paulleake (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I live in the area and everyone round here considers Gilesgate and Gilesgate Moor as the same area. Also, Sherburn Road isn't a part of Gilesgate as it has become its own separate estate over the years and there is no mention of it, whilst it is much bigger than Gilesgate Moor.Gilagod101 (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sherburn Road population wise and area wise is smaller than Gilesgate Moor (at least on official boundaries). To be honest I'd accept merger and redirect provided that the distinctions in historical development and local government arrangements can be successfully outlined. Paulleake (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sherburn Road is about double the size and has about double the population, Gilesgate Moor contains like 2 cul-de-sacs and 1 street or something. Sherburn Road has 2 estates, top estate and Woodland estate.Gilagod101 (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've merged them - the consensus here is broadly in favour.--Teach46 (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)