# Talk:Leatherhead

That's quite enough Leatherhead bashing for one article don't you think.  The high street is revamped and the team is still the best in the Mole Valley and not too shabby when compared to the rest of Surrey.
I will be writing to my MP forthwith! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.35.81.17 (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

The Head - thank you : ) x this is how easy it is, next time contact me direct Ms Teacher \ I do not appreciate your arrogance!

Dexywilson 13:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Dexywilson 13:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
leave the Head alone from Monkey

Lol - we have been deleted again - probably by some outsider - can't be bothered to check the edits, but you know who you are loser ; )  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.172.138 (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC) 
Again we have been deleted by Suzanne the self appointed custodian of Leatherhead history?
The history of the town has no chance unless of course we delete Suzzanne as spam - now there's a thought!
I have reinstated The Head
Thank you!
Greg Wilson
The Head
Dexywilson 09:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted info on this exceptionally minor local pop group which had no references on it other than it's own myspace advert. There was no other information about them on google. SuzanneKn 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to deletions being made after little or no research being carried out  - looking for The Head in google is not really what I would classify as extensive research (by the way we are in there if you look!)  If you have not heard of us, my guess is you that you either were not born or raised in Leatherhead or are under thirty. The links to the MySpace page are not an advert (you obviously do not know anything about MySpace) The http://www.myspace.com/theheadfromleatherhead page actually gives you the information you are looking for! If you took the time to read the history of the band, you would see that The Head are 'significant 'and for a period of nearly three years, were the most well known band in the area. The single was a local hit and the band and many of their fans were and still are, supporters of Leatherhead Football Club.
As for your comments with regard to, exceptionally, insignificant and minor - I suggest you do your research more thoroughly in the future!
Thank you
Greg Wilson 
The Head
Dexywilson 04:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol - we have been deleted again - probably by some outsider - can't be bothered to check the edits, but you know who you are loser ; )  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.172.138 (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC) 
Again we have been deleted by Suzanne the self appointed custodian of Leatherhead history?
The history of the town has no chance unless of course we delete Suzzanne as spam - now there's a thought!
I have reinstated The Head
Thank you!
Greg Wilson
The Head
Dexywilson 09:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted info on this exceptionally minor local pop group which had no references on it other than it's own myspace advert. There was no other information about them on google. SuzanneKn 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to deletions being made after little or no research being carried out  - looking for The Head in google is not really what I would classify as extensive research (by the way we are in there if you look!)  If you have not heard of us, my guess is you that you either were not born or raised in Leatherhead or are under thirty. The links to the MySpace page are not an advert (you obviously do not know anything about MySpace) The http://www.myspace.com/theheadfromleatherhead page actually gives you the information you are looking for! If you took the time to read the history of the band, you would see that The Head are 'significant 'and for a period of nearly three years, were the most well known band in the area. The single was a local hit and the band and many of their fans were and still are, supporters of Leatherhead Football Club.
As for your comments with regard to, exceptionally, insignificant and minor - I suggest you do your research more thoroughly in the future!
Thank you
Greg Wilson 
The Head
Dexywilson 04:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I object most strongly to the assertion that LeatherheadFC have fallen into obscurity.If this supposed to be part of an encyclopedia,then I suggest you get your facts right!A full history of the club is available on the website www.leatherheadfc-net. Since being restructured before the start of the 2000 season by the supporters, the club has gone from strentgh to strength, and is looking forward to competing in the new restructured league in the 2004/5 season, after a sucsessful season in the Ryman League Division 1.
Paul Everett,Commercial Manager,LEATHERHEAD FC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.28.203 (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


### Clean-up required
The article is considerably behind many comparable articles (eg Guildford, Epsom, Dorking, Redhill).  The content is currently heavily weighted towards the football club and there are several unqualified subjective comments (and even a retort to one of them within the article itself).  Perhaps someone with knowledge of the town would expand the article with some more useful objective facts suitable for an encyclopedia! Halsteadk 23:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Article considerably improved since 6 January (old version: [1]).  Comment above no longer relevant. Halsteadk 15:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is 'lucky' to be near two major international airports is a highly debatable claim, and is, in any event, oddly anthropomorphic language.  Rather than edit to, say, 'Unfortunately, Leatherhead is rather close to two international airports...' I've stated the fact of the town's location relative to airports baldly.
81.187.211.188 18:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the info on Air and it's pasted below as really the airport are a distance away
### Air
Leatherhead is fairly close to two of London's major Airports.
Gatwick: 30-40 minutes anti-clockwise on the M25 then M23.
Heathrow: 30-40 minutes clockwise on the M25.
SuzanneKn — Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That odd wording was back, until I changed it to something like the above.
Earthlyreason 15:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just remove the section on airports completely? Practically every town or city in the home counties is within similar easy reach of one or more of the London airports. This type of information really doesn't need to be in all the other articles, so it doesn't need to be in this article either.
This isn't a travel guide... let's keep the focus to Leatherhead. --David Edgar 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't strongly object to removing the airports reference. It's just that being 'half-way' between Heathrow and Gatwick is locally noted.  No big deal. Earthlyreason 08:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a long list of these which were mostly spam and actually not Leatherhead. I'm moved them to a list List of leisure activities in Leatherhead SuzanneKn 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 
Not just the Head we're all spam ! - someone please advise her what spam is she obviously has no idea - we can't let this person determine what Leatherhead is - there may be nothing to do, but we still love the town and do not need her interference !! The Head
Dexywilson 15:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:MichaelCaine.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sybil Thorndike as Joan of Arc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:CWoA logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems a little odd that only the Anglican church of St Mary & St Nicholas is given and none of the other churches that belong to "Churches Together in Leatherhead" (CTiL), namely: the Catholic Church of Our Lady and St Peter, Christ Church (United Reformed), Pioneer Engage and the Methodist Church. Details are available on the CTiL website: http://churchesleatherhead.org/
The are other groups that do not subscribe to CTiL such as Calvary Chapel (which is shown on the Leatherhead Article), the Strict Baptist Church and Kingscroft Chapel. There may be others besides. 
46.208.57.74 (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Ray

I've removed the taxis section from the article, but this appears to be controversial. Therefore I think this needs to be discussed. My proposal is to remove the taxi section from the article because the sole purpose of it seems to be to provide free advertising to local taxi companies. The text about there being a taxi rank outside the station seems unnecessary travel guide - style "information", hence why I feel that the entire section should be removed. ---- Mrmatiko (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A late approval.  It does not feature in WP:UKTOWNS.  That's a good guide if anyone cares to read about what people should learn about places! - Adam37 Talk 15:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

fainl you for the model.clic under :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Openstreetmap logo.svg/90px-Openstreetmap logo.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.254.246.254 (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The town centre section within 'The Town', is difficult to understand and could benefit from re-writing SovalValtos (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Leatherhead. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715015325/http://www.gwp.enta.net/surrnames.htm to http://www.gwp.enta.net/surrnames.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108151823/http://www.kbr.com/locations.aspx to http://www.kbr.com/locations.aspx
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) 01:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Leatherhead. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090708044054/http://www.visitleatherhead.com/town_history.asp to http://www.visitleatherhead.com/town_history.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090708044054/http://www.visitleatherhead.com/town_history.asp to http://www.visitleatherhead.com/town_history.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109100911/http://www.sussex.ac.uk/linguistics/documents/rc_britons.pdf to http://www.sussex.ac.uk/linguistics/documents/rc_britons.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090604150257/http://www.leatherheaddramafestival.org/home.html to http://www.leatherheaddramafestival.org/home.html
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) 16:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Leatherhead. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090911144255/http://www.the-theatre.org/history.php to http://www.the-theatre.org/history.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626185637/http://www.oakfieldjunior.ik.org/ to http://www.oakfieldjunior.ik.org/
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) 11:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Leatherhead. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203110509/http://www.cbrd.co.uk/motorway/m25/timeline to http://www.cbrd.co.uk/motorway/m25/timeline
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203023802/https://www.landmarksoftware.com/Pages/DefaultHome.aspx to https://www.landmarksoftware.com/Pages/DefaultHome.aspx
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) 12:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The following is from the Village green article and provides specifics about the Leatherhead decision ... perhaps someone wants to add a bit about it in the Leatherhead article. See the section marked in bold, below: 
ALSO: See these articles, specifically about the Leatherhead decision: https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/insights/news/wbd-advises-nhs-property-services-supreme-court-win-village-green-case AND https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/insights/news/wbd-advises-nhs-property-services-supreme-court-win-village-green-case ALSO the earlier article, https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/leatherhead-resident-saves-leach-grove-14547272
UK Supreme Court decision
On 11 December 2019, a Supreme Court decision put the future of some village greens at risk in England and Wales. The case involved five fields (13 hectares) in south Lancaster, the Mooreside Fields, owned by Lancashire County Council. The lands had been available for public use for over 50 years. According to the Commons Act 2006, land used for informal recreation for at least 20 years can be registered as a green and is then protected from development. (Granted, the Growth and Infrastructure Act of 2013 specified that land designated for planning applications could not be registered as a village green, but that did not apply in the Moorside Fields case.)
The Moorside Fields Community Group attempted to registered the lands in 2016 under the Commons Act. The local authority challenged the registration, wanting to retain control of the lands for future expansion of the nearby Moorside Primary School's playing fields. The Council's challenge failed in the High Court and then in the Court of Appeal; the registration of the land as a village green could proceed.[7] The Council subsequently appealed to the UK Supreme Court.
In the appeal decision, cited as R (on the application of Lancashire County Council) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Respondent) the Court overturned the previous judgments. At the same time, the Supreme Court also ruled against the registration of lands in a separate case in Surrey involving the 2.9 hectare Leach Grove Wood at Leatherhead, owned by the National Health Service.[8][9] After publication of the decision in the Moorside Fields case, Lancashire County Council told the news media that the fields might be needed for expansion of the school grounds and praised the Supreme Court decision as one that would "protect this land for future generations". [10]
In effect, the Supreme Court decision left the fields open to development for any purpose deemed appropriate by the Council. This could have far-reaching ramifications in England and Wales, according to the Open Spaces Society, a national conservation group that was founded in 1865. "This is a deeply worrying decision as it puts at risk countless publicly owned green spaces which local people have long enjoyed, but which, unknown to them, are held for purposes which are incompatible with recreational use", a representative told The Guardian.[11]
Peter K Burian (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Peter K Burian: I have added a section on Leach Grove Wood and the UK Supreme Court decision here. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Leatherhead/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 00:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I should have this finished in a day or two. I'm not sure if I've been to Leatherhead but I can't imagine its High Street being worse than some that I can think of in Hampshire! ♦ jaguar 00:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

"Leatherhead was primarily an agricultural settlement and a weekly market was held until the mid-Elizabethan era" - would read better as Leatherhead was primarily an agricultural settlement with a weekly market being held until the mid-Elizabethan era
Done. Rephrased as requested. Mertbiol (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
"Excavations of the manor house site (now known as The Mounts) in the mid-20th century, provided" - unnecessary comma
Done. Comma removed. Mertbiol (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
"New housing developments were built in Fairfield, Highlands and Kingston Roads, and Queen Anne's Garden" - when? In 1911?
Done. Added date range. Mertbiol (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
"In 2021, The local police force is Surrey Police" - necessary capital letter
Done. Replaced uppercase "T" with a lowercase "t". Mertbiol (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
"The headquarters of the charity moved to Epsom" - when was this? If not known, rephrase to 'since moved'
Done. I cannot find a date for the move, so I have rephrased the sentence as requested. Mertbiol (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
"Eric Idle, in Native American costume says" - Eric Idle can be linked
Done. Wiki link added as requested. Mertbiol (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
That's all I have. This is well-written, comprehensive and well sourced. I couldn't find much to point out, as evidenced by the short review. Sorry about that. On hold.  ♦ jaguar 00:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Jaguar: Thanks very much for your comments. I have made the changes that you have requested. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, another Surrey GA!  ♦ jaguar 12:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much @Jaguar: for your review and for promoting this article so quickly. Thanks also to @Polyamorph: for their input in the later stages of preparing for nomination. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I made an edit to the etymology section to remove suggestion that Lēod-rida is Brythonic for public ford. That is clearly incorrect. Lēod is clearly Old English. Rida is trickier but *rida is posited as a ridable ford. Coates takes issue with that, but it is a proposed word in Old English, not Brythonic. Brythonic has rrɨd for a ford, thus the alternative suggestion from Coates, which is Brythonic. If we are looking at Brythonic, I am surprised no one has considered the etymology of Lledrod as an alternative. But they haven't. So, anyway, where we are is that we have a source [2] that states that Leatherhead probbably comes from "public ford" but lists "grey ford" (per Coates) as an alternative. Then it wrongly tells us that Leode is primitive Welsh. The source is tertiary and sites 4 references:

Watts; Cambridge Dictionary of English Place-names 365
E. Ekwall; Dictionary of English Place-Names 292
A.D. Mills; Dictionary of English Place-Names 293
Gover et al.; Place-names of Surrey 78-79
Now 

Mills tells us the etymology is "Celtic lēd + rïd." 
Ekwall says: The elements appear to be OE léode - ‘people’ and *rida or *ride ‘riding-path’ or ‘ford over which it was possible to ride’. OE rida (or ride) would be a formation from ridan analogous to stiga or stige in ānstiga (-stige) from stigan (cf.ANSTEY). The name probably means 'the public ford'.
I have not yet tracked down a copy of Gover et al. nor of Watts. But I cannot see where that source is getting its information from. It seems to contradict its own source in saying that is primitive Welsh. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Watts says LEATHERHEAD Surrey TQ 1656. Probably 'the public ford' (æt) Leodridan [873x88]]11th S 1507, Leret 1086, Ledred(e) 1155-1504, Ledd- c.1190-1420, Ledered(e) 1241-1428, Lethered 1470-1603, -hde(d)(e) 16th cent., Leatherhead from 1630. OE lēode 'people' + OE rida -e 'a riding path, a ford which can be ridden'. Cf. THETFORD Borf TL 8783 for examples of a similar name type. The alternative suggestion, 'grey or brown ford', PrW *lēdrïd (Brit *lētorito-) is unnecessary.
Gover, I can't locate, but managed to preview on Gooogle books sufficient to affirm no mention fo Brythonic or Welsh.
Thus yes, the source we have is mistaken. The sources it cites contradicts its own information. I'll make another edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)