Talk:Killingworth

Hi, and Welcome to Killingworth,

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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.

I have added some photos and information onto the Killingworth Page and hope to keep adding further history, links and photos as I go along, as I am only new to this, I hope to include some old photos too from the old buildings around Killingworth.

--Killingworth 10:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I have proposed the merger between Killingworth and Killingworth Village because they appear to be about the same place, with different names. Please discuss. -Royalguard11^Talk 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Merge

Hi, You have requested a merger of Killingworth and Killingworth Village.

They are infact 2 different places.

Killingworth Village is on the outskirts of Killingworth but is not the same place. I dont think it would make much difference if they were merged but this would make the co-ordinates, history and pictures incorrect.

I was intending to add more information but unfortunately I do not have time at the present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killingworth Township 1966 (talk • contribs)

If they are not the same place, then there is no need to merge. Remove the merge template if you like. No one else seems to have an opinion on the matter, so it is safe to say you can remove them. -Royalguard11^Talk^{My Desk} 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are different places, so I don't think merging would be the right way to go. johnwalton ^(talk) 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with Disambig Page?

Killingworth, UK is not more notable (or if it is, it isn't to any significant extent) than Killingworth, Connecticut. Both are small towns of roughly the same size. Killingworth, Connecticut isn't named after Killingworth, North Tyneside, and, in fact, predates it by 300 years. There's already a Killingworth disambig page, and I think it makes sense to have Killingworth go directly to that.129.133.124.221 07:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

I've reverted some changes made by User:Lfstevens which I think change the meaning of the article, or else are introducing American English into a British English article. The original edits were in good faith and meant to be constructive, so if anyone disagrees please discuss it here.

"there is no recorded evidence for" was "no evidence survives of" - Morrison makes the point that any evidence has been destroyed or covered up, in other words the evidence may still survive but we have no record of it.
"falling to" (original "though that had fallen to") - I've left this, but is a continuous tense really applicable to two points where there is no evidence of the intermediate statistics?
"kept as common land" was "kept common" - I've reverted this; common land is a precise legal term, kept as common is not. This may be a US/UK difference; common land tenure is rooted in the common law of England dating back to "time immemorial".
"story" or "storey" - the OED is ambivalent about this giving both forms for a floor of a building. Most authors quoted in the OED seem to equate "story" with a tale and "storey" with buildings. This also may be a US/UK issue. I've reverted to "storey" in part to keep coherence with "multi-storey".
"which" versus "that" in para 1 of section Town centre - Thomson & Martinet in A Practical English Grammar (OUP) prefer the use of "which" as the subject of a relative clause, particularly in formal English. Yet again I suspect a Transatlantic rift here.
Blucher "replacements". I've reworded this, Geordie did not just replace Blucher but used the experience to build locomotives for use on other colliery lines.
"it was to be widely" or "it was widely" - I've reverted this. At the time in question (1815) no safety lamps were in use, let alone widely. I would suggest that it needs to be future in the past rather than an imperfect.

Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Killingworth. 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:

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) 17:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Killingworth. 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/20120211174413/http://www.twsitelines.info/core.nsf/a/msl_local_histories_k?opendocument&ID=msl101 to http://www.twsitelines.info/core.nsf/a/msl_local_histories_k?opendocument&ID=msl101

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) 08:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Snow Link

In the page of John Snow, the fore farther for epidemiology, there is a line in which explained that he first dealt with Cholera, the disease his famous discovery was linked to, whilst working with families affected with Cholera in Killingworth. As this may have been a pivotal moment, guiding history, should it not at least be referenced here? 90.249.6.93 (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]