Talk:Ardmore, Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philadelphia Mid‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia 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.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

12 Monkeys

There is a reference to Ardmore in the movie 12 Monkeys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.30.119 (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From an Ardmore resident

Just a heads up to any other editors, I happen to live in this town. :-) If there is anything that anyone would like photographed, local things researched, etc., feel free to give me a shout. Thanks! --Douglas Muth (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ardmore Has Crime

i lived in ardmore, on Elm Ave, and i am a gang member there, there is Bloods, and the Shotgun Boyz, and a whole lot of Theft, Drugs Some Murder, kept under rap, there is crime. i been stabed in a fight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.110 (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only thanks to human trash like yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronshupp (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's right. There are the Boys from Ardmore and the Krusty Krab Crew!!!!!! Watch out or you will be shooted!!11!11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.70.120.21 (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ardmore, Pennsylvania. 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://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509063118/http://www.firstfridaymainline.com/ to http://www.firstfridaymainline.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent merge

The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ardmore Presbyterian Church was to merge that article into this article. The merger was a selective paste merger, however, the text added to this article seems excessive. When I trimmed the text, my edit was reverted. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline should be the guide for appropriate content, and it does not even have a section for "churches". As well, the church is not listed at National Register of Historic Places listings in Delaware County, Pennsylvania or National Register of Historic Places listings in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Finally, this church was not notable enough for even for its own stub article. The input of other editors regarding the lengthy two paragraph entry about this church would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove I agree. (Also, to note, that the Pennsylvania deletion sort was not notified of the AFD.) A sentence or two is fine, but two paragraphs is way too much for this article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the users involved in the AfD - Yoshiman6464, Jahaza, E.M.Gregory, AdventurousSquirrel, Slashme - in case anyone wants to comment.

I have no objection to losing a little more of the content from the selective merge, but I object to the entire section (which I did cut down from the article itself) getting yanked entirely without discussion or notice. I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't been on my contribs page checking something else. For what it's worth, I have no personal interest - I was the editor who nominated it for deletion. I did the merge because I figured it was my responsibility as the nominator. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know this was the result of a merge until after I made my edit here. I moved the trimmed text to the photo caption. This seemed a good way to present the information. Please have a look. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could probably be trimmed further. It is as charming building, but otherwise completely ordinary Presbyterian congregation in a wealthy suburb. And I did search, but couldn't find much of anything. Nice postcard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the way it looks as of this version. --Slashme (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - the amount of content kept looks appropriate to me. Not sure I can think of a compelling reason to cut out much more of it. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]