Jump to content

Talk:Woking/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

In my recent edit the following thoughts cropped up, in no particular order:

  • I appreciate that the Liberal Democrats are the principal opposition to the Conservatives. My edit here is to maintain as good a NPOV as possible
  • The material about Cardinal Wolsey, from 172.188.298.23, being the reason for the Cards' nickname is a nice story. Thing is, is there any kind of reference to back it up? Otherwise we risk promulgating an unsubstantiated urban legend.
  • I'd quite like to split off the history section explicitly and have a section about the Necropolis company's dealings in more detail. If anyone has got any details about the town's history - references most welcome! - then maybe post them here?

Cheers, Sliggy 11:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone disagree with splitting the (comprehensive) History section into a separate article? I propose this because as it stands the article is heavily dominated by this history. Sliggy 17:39, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

From Woking FC website: "Woking Football Club, almost universally known as The Cards (from the Cardinal red of the red and white halves)" - I don't know if that's conclusive enough to warrant editing, but I would think so.--Bsquiggle 19:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I just cleaned this up which had a lot of adverts etc. This is what was there before if you have any views:

SuzanneKn 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Adams stuff

Shouldn't that stuff about Meaning of Liff, and maybe the War of the Worlds, be in a trivia section, rather than at the top? 86.16.223.203 21:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was going to say. Trivia shouldn't be listed in the opening section of article.172.206.54.172 17:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Generally I'd agree it shouldn't be at the top of the page but the War of the Worlds sculpture thing in the town is very notable. So much so that I think that the picture should be moved to the top. People going about Woking see the sculpture all the time and there is the centre called the planets. I think that there may be a picture in the underpass under the railway as well but I may be mistaken. Hence the war of the worlds should be commented on but the Meaning of Liff is not generally known in Woking and should go in the trivia section. SuzanneKn 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible advertising fluff deleted

Deleted the sentence about nationally acclaimed night club as it was unsubstantiated and un-cited; but feel free to put it back if it can be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.75.251 (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Home of Degenerate Hotel

I know it won't make it in to the article but I think the fact that The Metro Hotel is in Woking should be pointed out as a degenerate piece of trash that discriminated against a wounded British soldier and wouldn't let him get a room, which forced him to sleep in his car. If I ever get a chance to visit England you can bet that place will never get my business and I hope it goes bankrupt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.134.108 (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Civil parish

As far as I am aware the Civil Parish of Woking was abolished along with the Urban District of Woking, at the time of local government reorganisation in 1974 and the town of Woking now forms an unparished area within the Borough of Woking. A civil parish could be recreated by Woking Borough Council, as has happened in numerous towns throughout the country, but appears not to have been. Reference to the civil parish should therefore be removed from the article. Unless, of course, anyone knows of a civil parish being reestablished recently. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Walking? Woe-king? Feldercarb (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

woe-king.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Population

User Willrocks10 keeps changing the population number from 62k to 92k. The higher number is the population of the borough, not the town, and is already correctly shown on the page for Woking Borough. So putting that number on this page is incorrect. It's worth noting that the reason for this change appears to be to justify the inclusion of Woking in the page List of tallest buildings by United Kingdom settlement, which has an inclusion criteria of 100k population, but the same editor keeps lowering it to 90k. This in turn appears to be linked to an AfD debate for the page List of tallest buildings in Woking which this user is a major editor of. I think I've just reverted the population for the third time today, so I can't do it again without breaching WP:3RR, as such I'd appreciate it if other watchers of the Woking page could keep an eye on this. I beleive the user in question while well meaning, is young and new to Wikipedia. They have engaged in various disruptive edits, including removing AfD tags and blanking comments from the AfD page, but at the moment I'm assuming this is ignorance rather than malice and have been attempting to guide the user to more constructive editing. It may assist if other editors could do the same. Thanks --ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Notable People

This section was in a bit of a state, being half a list (as is normal) and half a text block. There was no apparent reason for the distinction, one group wasn't any more notable than the other, so I've converted the whole thing into a list. This makes it fairly long though. Quite a lot appear unreferenced, although there is a Woking Council ref used a couple of time that can probably back up a lot of these, and indeed add a load more. If I have time later today I'll cross reference it and put it against the relevent people, might convert the whole thing to a table as well for neatness. If that ref does throw up some more names, this will probably need to be broken out into a seperate article, as is common in town pages like this.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned this up a lot, adding citations where I could and tags where I couldn't. There are about six left I couldn't find direct evidence for. Also put in a few more from the Woking gov ref, but not everyone listed there.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—Affinanti3 (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC) ptw007/ affinanti

You could just fix it?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
no Declined as coordinates appear to be correct and no specific correction was requested. Please feel free to repost your request with a specific statement of what correction you may think might be needed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The jet fighter on the pole

What's with that? Martyn Smith (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Albert Jack

An IP editor is changing the description of this person in the 'Notable people' section. It sounds like they know about the subject, but the changes they are making directly contradict the citation for this entry and have therefore been reverted. Before changing this again, please find a citation which demonstrates that this is the correct description of his relationship with Woking, otherwise these edits are original research and will be reverted.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Now re-added by a new editor and linked to a new page. That page as no relevent citations either. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Put back again, leaving for now to avoid 3RR.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
This is far too trivial a thing to engage in an edit war over. So I've removed the citation which contradicts this and replaced it with a citation required tag. It would be nice if the mystery editor could actually supply this, but I'm not holding my breath.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


Bus Section

I will revert the edits one last time. I have looked at the links you have given and they are not that. The section talks about the different routes in Woking and roughly how long it takes for them to travell their route. It is not advertising/How much something is, but a brief explanation of the bus routes in Woking.

I ask you not to revert this again.

Thank You, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It is material drawn from primary sources making it original research. If you can find a reliable secondary source that discusses bus travel in Woking then it may be able to stay. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. That is what Wikitravel is for.--Charles (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Re comments on WP:Surrey talk page

I've started looking at this article following the comment regarding FA status on the Wikiproject Surrey talk page.

My overall opinion is that this article contains a number of trivialities (most notably the project section0 which need much better referencing and could be cut down to improve the article. THe notable residents section should, in my opinion be moved to a separate article as a sortable list (see List of Old Guildfordians (Royal Grammar School, Guildford)) and the main section rewritten as prose, or else the list should be moved to a sortable list within the main article, as currently it is very lengthy and difficult to read.

As for sections, I've moved a few bits around, but I think the sectioning needs some work but I am not the best person to do this so hopefully someone else with a better knowledge of town articles would be able to do this? I hope this helps! I will work a bit on this article when I have time over the next few days as well. Thanks, GlanisTalk 11:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think I will make a list, though keep certain people such as Delia Smith, Rob Green and Harry Hill as these are especially notable. I will also try to find references for them all.
I've moved to section to a sortable table as I suggested above. In my opinion I would move this into a separate article and just create a prose summary like in with List of Old Guildfordians (Royal Grammar School, Guildford) and Royal Grammar School, Guildford. This is just a suggestion, but I think it currently is very dominating within the article. GlanisTalk 18:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Borough v. town

I have a problem with this page in that it confuses Woking borough and Woking town. The info box is on the borough whilst the page is on the town. The population difference is a big issue then because if you just take the town obviously it is smaller than Guildford. However, if you look at the borough it is much bigger and distorts the picture. I haven't yet investigated what the solutions are elsewhere. SuzanneKn 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made a new page Woking (borough) and put the borough info box there and put a town info box here on the town page. This is a similar situation as Guildford with Guildford (borough) Hope it's OK SuzanneKn 20:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I have now tried to make allowance for a simplistic split into two (dichotomy) between Suburb? or village within post town? by combining the list in a more neutral WP:NPOV section which, helpfully in a fairly geographical way, groups together what is contiguous and what just happens to be in the post town. As to the former, people sometimes argue no matter how salubrious, perhaps nowadays that is really a suburb so this avoids that debate. What retains its village identity or indeed separate post town such as West Byfleet is perhaps hinted at but only by commas or semicolons. That is a common technique which you will see with articles such as Maidstone. Hopefully that solves the puzzle and rightfully more places are listed in Woking (borough) Adam37 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Suburbs

The result of the recent AfD debate on Barnsbury Estate was to merge the information there into the Suburbs section of this page.

To accomplish that I propose to create a sub section for Barnsbury, in anticipation that future editors will do the same for other listed suburbs. Ultimately this may require a seperate page for Woking Suburbs, but it makes sense to start to assemble the info here before creating the new page.

I propose to pull over the information below from the Barnsbury article, does this seem appropriate? It's a bit large, but there was a desire to get this info into the Woking page. Some pruning before posting to the article might be in order.

The Barnsbury Estate is a housing estate of approximately 400 households.[1] Begun in 1936, it is a self-contained estate of bungalows, housing and flats mostly built in the 1950s. Barnsbury is bordered by the Hoe Valley and is located to the south of Woking on the A320.

As part of Woking's proposed Priority Homes PFI submission, back gardens of a significant number of houses were at risk of development.[2] This resulted from January to September 2007 in an extensive community engagement to see if and how these back gardens could be used for development.[3][1]. The scheme was eventually cancelled..[4]

Starting in August 2009, Ypod Extra (formerly The Barnsbury Project) on Ash Road is open to all young people on Barnsbury estate every Monday between 6.30 and 9pm. It is run in conjunction with Woking Borough Council and is partly funded and supported by the local police. [5]

--ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd try to avoid aiming the Barnsbury stuff at the suburbs section. Try and look at that material from a Woking perspective, and see how much you can weave into the rest of the article. For instance, most town articles have a Geography section which would allow you to include the stuff about the Hoe Valley, and the start of construction at Barnsbury and the PFI scheme are notable elements of the history of the town as a whole - although as it is now, they would go into the history article (along with that US TV show) rather than the summary of the history in this article. And the Ypod thing could perhaps be part of an Entertainment section. You should be able to include more of the Barnsbury material that way. Le Deluge (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Trouble is, I think this stuff is pretty small beer for Woking as a whole. The estate has 400 houses, which as a proportion of 62k population is pretty tiny. I don't think this stuff is particularly notable for Woking as a whole. I suspect a better solution would be a breakaway article dealing specifically with Woking Suburbs, where each of these smaller areas which aren't notable enough for an article of their own, could have a section. But there isn't enough material to do that now.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I've put in the info, per the proposal above. Other editors can now edit it if they think it appropriate, plus create sections for other suburbs. This wraps up the AfD result from Barnsbury estate, so that page can now be deleted.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
As to the use of suburb for villages which a vast majority inhabitants would object to that and others more equally split, see my edit change above at Talk:Woking#Borough_v._town which helpfully resolves this debate in a logical way.Adam37 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Estate development survey was a fix, say residents". S&B media. 2007-09-06. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
  2. ^ "Barnsbury residents to have a say on new housing development". Woking Borough Council. 2006-12-29. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
  3. ^ "Formal statement by Cllr Philip Goldenberg". Woking Borough Council. 2007-04-16. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
  4. ^ "'Garden grab' scheme shelved". S&B media. 2008-01-30. Retrieved 2010-08-23.
  5. ^ "Woking YMCA takes the Ypod to the streets". Woking YMCA. 2009-08-10. Retrieved 2010-08-24.

Article Style & Layout

I've been looking at the UK Geography WikiProject and they have a rather nice set of guidelines to follow when writing an article about a UK Settlement, so I propose that the current article is fitted into this layout, so as to be in the same format as the remainder of settlements within the UK. The guidelines can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements Thanks, GlanisTalk 20:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I support this, I've found those guidelines very useful for other settlement related articles. I think the structure that they provide would improve the flow of the article. (I'll add a link to the guidelines at Wikiproject Surrey too). -- Mrmatiko (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank You!

For all the work people have done, especially MrMatiko and Glanis must be congtraulated. I am so happy with how this page has come along-I don't know how to thank you!

Thank you, again!, pbl1998Pbl1998 (talk)

To be honest it was mostly Glanis who is deserving of praise, I've just done some fiddling round the edges. ---- Mrmatiko (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

WWF HQ

As this is a fairly notable part of Woking, I think it should have something in the article instead of being cut from it completly. Shall we keep the WWF part on the project page, or just put a line about-Either in the projects section or in the 'Introduction' at the top. Personally, I think it should keep its part in the project page.

Also, I think all of the information is relevant in the projects section. If you look at the External Links section you will see we have reference for them. I will make these into proper references. Anyway, please can you explain a bit more about your point on the projects section?

Thanks, pbl1998Pbl1998 (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC) No thanks, Willy Rendall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.249.132 (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

My problem with the projects section is that it drastically changes the weight of this article towards these projects. Ideally this section wouldn't exist and the parts of it would be spread in appropriate sections of the article. For example the end of the history section and parts in the facilities sections. For now I've just removed the most excessive parts, listing every single detail of the Hoe Valley scheme is unnecessary and the WWF move is irrelevant with regards to the town. If this were to be included then it should be in an economy section, along with some of the other sections. When I have time, I'll move things around to try and reduce the awkward balance of the sections that this article has. ---- Mrmatiko (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Lack of notability

This "very complete" article contains an awful lot of non-notable (and just plain silly) content. Woking contains "old and new" churches? So, churches then. (And even that is not very notable). And elsewhere "Woking has many churches".

"A Café Rouge outlet has been added in the library with the sides of the library being expanded to make up for room lost to the Café Rouge." Really?

There's a "skatepark (which is popular with local children)" - If it were unpopular it might JUST be notable - but even then, I suspect not.

This article is bloated and needs proper enclopaedification (Did I just invent a new word?) Plingsby (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Notables

Please can someone sort of this edit. I've spent 15 minutes trying to format the thing properly and have never seen such a daft system in > 150,000 edits. We're creating work for ourselves using that template when a simple list, as used in most articles, would suffice. - Sitush (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I would favour a simple list, or making this one a separate page. It is making the article very large anyway.Charles (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've managed to fix the problem but, yes, a simple list would do. We do not need the images because they are available at the linked articles, if at all extant. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Woking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Woking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Woking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Woking. 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) 13:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Formula One

Is listed under sport but McLaren is already mentioned in the section on the economy of the town. No actual racing takes place in Woking and the techology centre is involved in a lot more fields than just F1. I propose this section is deleted. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense to me to remove the section Murgatroyd49.SovalValtos (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Done Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woking/Archive_1&oldid=1142556025"