Talk:Ford and Etal

Two destinations in one

Swept in from the pub

Is it okay to bring two small villages together in one article, also in the title, when they market themselves as one destination? I'm talking about Ford and Etal in the UK. From a travellers' point of view, it seems better to combine them. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not. As far as I can see, the real question is what naming convention you should use ("Ford and Etal"? "Ford & Etal"? "Ford-Etal"?) Never mind, a quick review of Wikivoyage:Naming conventions suggests that "Ford and Etal" should be fine. PerryPlanet (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't object to having a combined page for the two villages, which are about 2 miles apart. However it is worth noting that the website is that of the Ford and Etal estate (the local land owner) rather than the villages themselves. There is an existing outline page for Ford, which should redirect to the new page. AlasdairW (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware, but it's the closest thing to an official website and pretty much all relevant travel information (including the wider Northumberland tourist information) uses the combination ánd focuses on the estates. The villages are part of the historic estates in this case, rather than the other way around. I left the Ford outline as it was just to await comments here, I'll move that info to the new article then soon. Thanks! JuliasTravels (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

I don't think that this place is big enough to warrant a separate entry on wikivoyage so I'm propsing that this article is redirected to Berwick-upon-Tweed and any useful information is moved over to there. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure. It now has more see and do listings than Berwick-upon-Tweed, and it would not be easy to show both sets on a map. It is also about the same distance to Kelso or Kirk Yetholm. AlasdairW (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)