Talk:The Sir George Robey

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Squatting Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Squatting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of squatting 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.SquattingWikipedia:WikiProject SquattingTemplate:WikiProject Squattingsquatting articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External link

I have removed an external link (twice now) on the basis of WP:ELNO; point 11 in the list should show that it is not to be considered, and no "crowd-sourced" information source should ever be considered as reliable. I hope this link will not make it back onto the page a third time. - SchroCat (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO does not prohibit such a link. Furthermore, point 11 refers to "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites", of which this is none. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd-sourced isn't reliable--we don't cite us either. And what is the purpose of the link? Drmies (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good job it's an external link, and not a citation, then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point 12 of WP:ELNO says "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors"; this covers the site, as far as I can see. – SchroCat (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The site has "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but the thought of trying to batter my head against brick again over something so pointless, even when a couple of people are questioning the inclusion, is too tedious to contemplate. - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with SchroCat and Drmies, in their entirety and further edit-warring to re-insert the link without clear-cut consensus over here, will be nicely escalated to 3RRN.Best, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Shouldn't the name of this article include the word "pub"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]