In case anybody is wondering, I removed the section about the "three smaller localities of Glen Waverley" (Syndal, Tally Ho, and Wheelers Hill), because Syndal is technically a locality of Mount Waverley, not Glen Waverley, Wheelers Hill is a suburb, not a locality at all, and Tally Ho is too insignificant to merit a mention, particularly on its own. - Vaelor 06:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, agree, disagree. Glen Waverley isn't that big, Tally Ho seems relevant for this article. If the article were 20 pages long and you were looking to trim, then fair enough. But it's barely a stub - why chop? Stevage 07:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not looking to chop as such, more didn't know how to better phrase "Glen Waverley contains, erm, well at least one smaller locality, namely, Tally Ho!". Seemed an awkward sentence once Syndal and Wheelers Hill were removed from the equasion. If you can come up with an intelligent way to mention Tally Ho in the article, please do - it's only that I couldn't! =) - Vaelor 07:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Don't make life hard for yourself. "There is a business park in Glen Waverley called Tally Ho". It's fairly significant, I don't have a list of companies housed there though. Stevage 22:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not looking to chop as such, more didn't know how to better phrase "Glen Waverley contains, erm, well at least one smaller locality, namely, Tally Ho!". Seemed an awkward sentence once Syndal and Wheelers Hill were removed from the equasion. If you can come up with an intelligent way to mention Tally Ho in the article, please do - it's only that I couldn't! =) - Vaelor 07:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)