Talk:Whitechapel Vigilance Committee
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merge notice[edit]
I can see why someone looking at the article as it exists now, and especially one who lacks any knowledge about the case (as has become evident from the comments left by the person who added the merge tag on the JTR talk page), might think this article cannot stand on its own separate from the Jack the Ripper article, but I think that that other article is already quite large and needs to have even more articles split off in order to handle the topics in any depth. The Whitechapel Vigilance Committee was a quite important development in the Ripper crimes, and there is a lot of information that could be included here that simply would not fit on the main article.
Therefore I am against merging the two. 172.130.122.90 22:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- As usual, everyone who disagrees with you "lacks any knowledge about the case". Yawn. I'll discuss edits with you when you shape up and start speaking to other editors with respect, not until then. wikipediatrix 01:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- And, as usual, if you don't care to discuss your edits once they are challenged, the fact that you won't defend them means you just want your will to be done regardless what other experienced editors say. As you have not even attempted to provide any justification for a merge, I am removing the merge notice. do not restore the tag unless you are willing to give an actual reason following Wikipedia policies as to why a perfectly reasonable and historically important topic should be gotten rid of. 172.128.225.40 02:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I will not enter discussions with people who use insults and uncivil language. If you think I am in error, you are free to pursue an RfC in the matter. wikipediatrix 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- And, as usual, if you don't care to discuss your edits once they are challenged, the fact that you won't defend them means you just want your will to be done regardless what other experienced editors say. As you have not even attempted to provide any justification for a merge, I am removing the merge notice. do not restore the tag unless you are willing to give an actual reason following Wikipedia policies as to why a perfectly reasonable and historically important topic should be gotten rid of. 172.128.225.40 02:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Reasons for merge[edit]
To whom it may concern: obviously - at least I thought it was obvious - this article consists of only four short sentences, and half of it is on the Jack the Ripper article already. I don't think the remaining two sentences justify the article, and I don't think it would be calamitous to move these two sentences back to the Jack the Ripper article. wikipediatrix 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge is clearly the right answer now. If someone turns up later and actually writes a meaty article on Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, then so be it. A hypothetical discussion about an article that might be written (but might not) gets us nowhere. Marc Shepherd 03:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Wikipediatrix. Addhoc 11:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge (with redirect?) Guy Hatton 18:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- If someone wants to be WP:BOLD and do the merge, go for it. I'd do it myself but I've never done one before and would hate to screw it up. wikipediatrix 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I also support the merge as I have stated on the Ripper page. If someone wants to create a solid article about the subject then they can unmerge it from the Ripper article at a later date. Quadzilla99 14:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Since the article isn't of the Jack the Ripper article, it's obvious that the above discussion is irrelevant. Just thought I'd point that out to anyone who doesn't notice the dates. --clpo13(talk) 00:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Reference improval[edit]
I placed a refimprove tag at the top of the page to indicate that there should probably be more inline citations for the article. There are a few links, but we need to actually cite the references instead of throwing them out there. --clpo13(talk) 00:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Confusion on dates[edit]
This article is unclear on key dates. It states that the Committee first met on September 10, 1888. However, it states that the first patrol by the group was on April 3, 1888. How can the patrols start 5 months before the group is formed? Keythewish (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Charles Reeves bio[edit]
In the second paragraph, the following appears: "The latter was probably the entertainer Charles Reeves." I propose the creation of a footnote linking to the following biography of Reeves: http://www.casebook.org/notable_people/charles-reeves.html. Akld guy (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)