Talk:London to Brighton events
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on London to Brighton events. 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://archive.is/20130421035624/http://www.london-to-brighton.co.uk/ to http://www.london-to-brighton.co.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 13:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Splitting proposal
editI propose that section Running events be split into a separate page. The current page has diverse albeit related topics and this section is large enough to make its own page. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - while I agree that section is fairly long (compared to the other sections on that page), it is mostly that long table of "past winners", which only appears long because of the fact it's in a table. I don't think there's enough actual content there to justify another separate article. WP:SIZESPLIT says, as a rule of thumb, that when an article is "<40kB/40,000 chars", it shouldn't be split based on size alone, and the article is currently only ~14kB. Seagull123 Φ 19:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Seagull. No opposition to a fully fleshed out individual article, but it shouldn't be separated in its current state. A bit more substance is required. SFB 18:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)