[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Woking

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

WokingThis page is an interest of Wikiproject Woking.

Employment and industry

[edit]

Should be mention of Telewest, BAT and McClaren, but they are the only ones I kno about. ANyone who lives there should be able to expand. Rich Farmbrough, 23:16 21 December 2006 (GMT).


Clarified the rather amateurish McLaren section that existed heretofore. I'm usually happy to leave well enough alone, but the paragraph that was there was a mess. - Patrick in Astoria, 17 June 2009, about 10:30 EDT.

Header Introduction

[edit]

Why is the voting/current MP included in the header introduction? Not a standard thing included at that level of a place's entry. 92.15.19.112 (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point,I've removed it. It is covered in the appropriate section already. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Planning to include the following paragraph under the History subsection of this page given this was a fairly notable event/news story:

In November 2019 during an interview with BBC Newsnight, Prince Andrew denied allegations by Virginia Giuffre (nee Roberts) that he had non-consensual sexual relations three times in 2001 and 2002 with the then 17-year-old because he had been attending a birthday party with Princess Beatrice at the Woking branch of restaurant chain Pizza Express.[1] Miscellieneous (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Miscellieneous[reply]

Trivial and not really relevant to Woking itself. Also inaacurate. NB, please add new topics at bottom of page. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost as ridiculous as adding to Tramp (nightclub) that the club "was named as the place where Virginia Roberts was forced to dance with a "sweaty" Prince Andrew." Errmm... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Doward, Jamie (17 Nov 2019). "Prince Andrew: I didn't have sex with teenager, I was home after Pizza Express in Woking". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
News just in. [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very amusing! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]

My addition of information about Prince Andrew's reference to Woking during his 2019 interview was removed for being inaccurate and irrelevant to the article by User:Murgatroyd49. On the first point, I am happy to have my information corrected (I cited from the BBC) but on the second point, I would like to ask why this incident is deemed irrelevant to the history of Woking. This was a major international news story and my understanding is that this would therefore be relevant to Woking's (recent) History. Any thoughts? Miscellieneous (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Miscellieneous[reply]

I won't answer for User:Murgatroyd49, but as far as I can see, since Prince Andrew's claim was never independently corroborated, it amounts simply to "hearsay". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is inaccurate in that he was accused of assaulting the girl on three separate occasions, according to the story. He doesn’t appear to have claimed each time coincided with his daughter’s birthday. The actual location of the fast food shop is not relevant to the story. And, as pointed out, there is no independent corroboration. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the claim had been entirely accurate and had been fully corroborated in a court of law (as may still happen, of course), I'm not totally convinced it was an event of major significance in the history of Woking. Were Pizza Express planning to install some kind of "blue plaque", perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the claim is accurate there is no story, if the claim isn’t true he wasn’t there, either way it has no relevance in an article about Woking. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you, I wouldn't sweat too much over this proposal, Murgatroyd49. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. Jumping to highlight that some of the discussion here and immediately above is not very supportive or collaborative. There is some justification that is both reasonable and clearly explained, and which User:Miscellieneous invited, conceded and expressed gratitude for. However, some of the rhetoric used in response is pretty off-putting and demoralizing for new editors to read. Please keep this in mind User:Murgatroyd49 and User:Martinevans123. Thanks LisaGiocondo (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

[edit]

Expanding on details about the New Victoria Theatre, information about entertainment venues would be more appropriate in the Culture section, not in community facilities. I will make this change if there are no objections.

For my part, go ahead Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while mention of COVID PCR testing is a valuable inclusion, again this seems out of place in the Community Facilities section of this page. Suggestions appreciated, as framing COVID testing/anything pandemic related as concerning community facilities is clumsy. Miscellieneous (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where woud you put it? Perhaps a section on its own? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge . Eopsid (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose Merging the Borough of Woking article into this one. I can't see how the two are distinct. The Borough of Woking is Woking. The Borough contains no seperate parishes and does not contain multiple built-up areas. Eopsid (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Must confess I didn't realise there was a seperate article onn the borough. I agree with the merger. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It passes most of the criteria to have just 1 article, see User:Crouch, Swale/District split#Others. At the time of the split Byfleet was a separate parish but it was abolished and since it was formed in 1990 out of Woking unparished area and is now abolished Working district only contains 1 unparished area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there is consensus to merge I'd suggest creating Woking Borough Council since although we should generally not have separate articles for a council to its district this is usually appropriate if the district is combined with the settlement or another entity. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as there was no opposition I have now done the merger. Eopsid (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for photographs

[edit]

Hi,
I have been working on the Woking article for the past month or so. There is still more to do, but I would like to submit it for Good article review at the start of August. I wondered if there are any local Wikipedians who might be able to take some photographs? Over half of the pictures currently in the article are from 2010 or earlier - Woking has developed considerably and camera technology has improved dramatically since then. It would be great to take advantage of the relatively good weather that we are enjoying so far this summer.
This isn't a "list of demands", but it would be really great to have up-to-date photos of some of:

  • Goldsworth Park (especially by the lake)
  • Horsell Common (especially the Sandpit)
  • Surrey History Centre
  • Living Planet Centre
  • Woking Borough Council offices
  • Town centre (especially the new Victoria Square development)
  • Woking railway station (especially the main, south entrance)
  • Police station (old grammar school)
  • Woking Community Hospital
  • Woking Park (especially the fuel cell)
  • Sports grounds (in particular Rugby, Hockey and Cricket)
  • Smart's Heath and Prey Heath
  • Schools (in particular Hoe Valley School)
  • Woking sewage treatment works (not sure how much can be seen from public roads/footpaths)
  • Woking Palace (not sure whether public access is possible)
  • Triggs Lock, Pyrford Lock, Walsham Gates (Wey Navigation)
  • Any other building or open space that fits into the scope of the article

I will try my best to get over to Woking in early July, but if anyone is in the area before then and can help out with a few of these photos, that would be great. Thanks and best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Southern entrance to Woking station: WokingStation taken last year. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Murgatroyd49: I may be being very stupid, but that photo seems to be from 2005 and has South West Trains branding. I think the cars have "V" and "X" number plates... Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, misread the date! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mertbiol: Had to change trains at Woking today, grabbed the oportunity for an up-to-date photo of the station. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Murgatroyd49: Looks great!! Thanks very much. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Murgatroyd49: for adding lots of new up-to-date photographs to the article. I was in the Woking area this weekend and have been able to take pictures of some of the schools and other places of interest. I think the page is looking much improved as a result. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preparing for Good Article nomination

[edit]

Hi All!
I've been working on the Woking article over the past month or so and would like to nominate it for a Good Article review in a few weeks' time. I'd be very grateful for feedback on how to improve the article further. Are there any aspects of the town/borough which are not given appropriate coverage? Should any of the subsections be combined or removed?
I would like to change the main infobox image, but I am not sure what would be the most suitable picture to use instead. It might be best to create a montage of five or six photographs, which together are more representative of the borough as a whole, rather than relying on just one image.
Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the page for a Good Article review. Mertbiol (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woking Borough Council

[edit]

Since no article exists at Borough of Woking per #Merger discussion as the boundaries are long-standing (see User:Crouch, Swale/District split) and similar an article should probably exist on the council per WP:UKDISTRICTS like Eastbourne Borough Council unless the article on the district is restored. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Woking/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 17:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig shows 29.6%, so violations and plagiarism unlikely
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I will get to this review in the next week. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN. I will be using this review in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • On criterion 3b: some notes seems unnecessary, and should probably be removed. These include numbers 5 (brick colour), 7 (Woking and Sutton manors), 14 (compensation for lack of commons), 23 (Sherlock Holmes story), 25 (electricity pylon), and 26 (legality of cremation).
  • Additionally, 9 (King John gives Sutton), 11 (locks on the Wey), 15 (church design/consecration), 22 (crater on Mars), and 27 (picture description) could be incorporated into the text.
  • Note 17 (Necropolis golfers) I'll allow because it made me laugh.
  • On 1b, I'm specifically considering MOS:LAYOUT, especially MOS:OVERSECTION: Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading.
  • I do not feel that level-2 sections such as "Notable buildings and landmarks", or "National and local government" warrant so many individual sub-sections.

One more comment: the history section says "Woking was held by the Crown until 1200, when King John granted it to Alan Basset.", while the notable buildings section states "The first manor house on the site of Woking Palace is thought to have been built by Alan Basset, who was granted the manor by Richard I in 1189." Please clarify.

  • Thank you for spotting this. I have checked the sources. All of those published in the past 20 years say that it was Richard I who granted Woking to Basset in 1189. Crosby (2003) follows the Victoria County History (1911) in saying that John was responsible. In my experience, the VCH does occasionally get things like this wrong, so I have gone with the more recent sources. Mertbiol (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting the review on hold for a week. Please ping me when you feel you've addressed the issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Thanks very much for your feedback. I think I have addressed everything that you have raised. Please let me know if you have further comments. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mertbiol, I do rather like what you've done with the notable buildings section. Might I ask you to consider what you feel could be done in other sections vis-à-vis MOS:OVERSECTION: the Parks, Education, and Transport sections especially? Just a recommendation.
Another thing: I don't suppose there is any usable information from the 2021 census? It seems a shame to have everything sourced to a decade-out-of-date survey.
  • Only very high level data from the 2021 census is currently available (essentially the "top line" population figure for the whole of the borough). The more detailed data is due to be released "in summer 2023" - so we have to rely on the 2011 census. Mertbiol (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I've forgotten to do my usual source spotcheck, so I'll do that soon.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source spotcheck (10 random citations)
  1. 52 fine
  2. 79 AGF
  3. 102 AGF
  4. 139 fine
  5. 189 AGF
  6. 252 this seems to be for Church of St Mary the Virgin, not St Nicholas' Church in Pyrford
  1. 282 fine
  2. 319 fine
  3. 320 AGF
  4. 372 fine with 371

so that's five fine, four AGFs, and one oopsie. I'll check a couple more accessible sources:

  1. 116 page number needed
  • I have added the page number
  1. 226 fine but should have |url-status=dead
  1. 256 fine

@AirshipJungleman29: I think I have addressed all the points you raised. Please let me know if you have further comments. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Passing now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much @AirshipJungleman29: for your review. Thank you also to @Murgatroyd49: for making a special trip to Woking last summer to take a set of high-quality photos for the article. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Mertbiol (talk). Self-nominated at 07:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Woking; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Hi Mertbiol (talk), review follows (full disclosure: I lived in Woking very briefly - I remember well the Martian tripod in the precinct): article promoted to GA on 1 March; looks to be well written and citations are provided inline to 400 sources, I didn't check them all but they looked generally to be reliable for the subjects cited; I found no issues with overly close paraphrasing in a spot check and Earwig shows nothing concerning; you look to be exempt from the QPQ requirement; the hook fact is interesting, stated in the article and checks out to source cited
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woking&oldid=1212348362"