Talk:Royal Tunbridge Wells

message: The population figure of 100,000 sounds very excessive... as far as I can remember, it's closer to 60,000.  Does anyone know of a good UK database for population statistics? 
Also, the section of famous inhabitants seems to me a very silly idea, unless it's limited to famous people of the past.  If anything it makes the town look more irrelevant than it actually is - no page on any large city would list present-day celebrity residents.
Palefire 03:33, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
In terms of population, I think that must be for the whole district covered by the Borough Council. This is a very confusing statistic when compared to the Sevenoaks page, for instance, that quotes its population as 18,000, which could only cover the very centre of the town itself - with suburbs taken into account, these towns are similar sizes. Some standardisation is needed.
Shoppers are best advised to choose which part of the town they are most interested in (the old Pantiles and "Village" area to the south of the town, or the newer area around the Victoria Shopping Centre) before they go, as each area is separated and is thus not easy to walk between.
This is subjective, I find the walk between these two areas very pleasant and takes all of 10 minutes.
MilkmanDan 12:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Not sure if MilkmanDan's comments above are potentially misleading. Whilst I agree that it can take 10 minutes to walk between the new (clone town) part of Tunbridge Wells and the older High Street/Chapel Place/Pantiles end of town, the comment makes it sound like there's nothing in between. The route between the two areas, Mount Pleasant Road is still a major shopping area leading to the town' railway station which is in the middle of the two areas. There is not really any physical distinction between the areas (other than a hill), it is more of a linear town from Royal Victoria Place all the way down the hill to the Pantiles. The two areas are not seperated.
--JezzBrookes 12:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Population figures amended to allow for difference between town and borough. Source cited.--Silver149 08:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Population comments

message: The most recent mod has changed a few words from British to American spelling. Since this is an article about a British town, they should have been left as-is.
:As per .   Deano 10:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate spelling changes 

message: I can't see how singling "Pomeroi" out (and providing a link to its website as a reference!) or indeed naming certain other shops over others can be seen as anything but advertising...
192.93.164.20 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspected Advertising

message: I have added a section on parks, with each park being given its own sub-heading. This is with the intension of developing each parks content, so the sections get bigger. At the moment they look a little short and therefore maybe not suited to subheadings, but eventually i intend to add more so bullet points (or similar would be unsuitable). I also intend to develop an independent article on Dunorlan Park as I is of such historical importance and such a popular location in the town. It would be good to develop more in the Commons and Wellington Rocks too. McKDandy 19:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parks

message: Are the crime rate figures for the district as whole, not for the town? These figures diffe, and are given in a different format - although for another year? Peter Shearan (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Crime

message: I have removed the paragraphs on industrial estates and employers, partly because they didn't seem to fit in a "Geography" section, partly because they don't seem to be particularly relevant to the article - it's not as though Tunbridge Wells is known for any of those employers, and I think the location of industrial estates is more suited to the Yellow Pages than to an encyclopaedia  (though I concede that could be a matter of opinion), and partly because the Pantiles and the old Cinema aren't actually industrial estates.
Simon
78.149.147.223 (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Industrial estates and employers

message: Out of interest I wonder why my blog, http://anke.blogs.com, is always removed from the External Links no matter who inserts it. Bear with me here. Firstly it is not a personal blog anymore but the largest online repository of the history and culture of Tunbridge Wells, and more significantly contains many historic articles about Tunbridge Wells that just do not exist anywhere else online. I know it's called a blog but it's evolved into more than that. Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankehuber (talk • contribs) 08:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links section

message: I have merged the Amenities section with the rest of the article because, although it had some good information, it seemed more like a tourist brochure than an encyclopaedia (see related criticism of the TW article at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Kent/To_Do) and was inconsistent with the approach taken on other Kent articles such as Canterbury and Maidstone. 
Sjc196 (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Amenities" section

message: I think this article now seems to meet the criteria to be considered a Good Article - see Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria. I don't know the procedure - do we just add it to the list for consideration, or is there more to it than that?
Sjc196 (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading about the nominations criteria I don't see why it shouldn't be nominated for review, so I've put it on the list. Sjc196 (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article...?

message: The two GA reviews for this article can be found at Talk:Royal Tunbridge Wells/GA1 and Talk:Royal Tunbridge Wells/GA2. -epicAdam(talk) 19:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Reviews

message: Up to date information on the chalybeate spring in Tunbridge Wells is completely absent from the article on Tunbridge Wells. 
Is it still used? Does it still exist? Where is it? Does "Well" in Tunbridge "Wells" refer to the spring? Is there more than one spring outlet? Is there a building over the spring? A picture of the building? Inside the building? Can we have a picture of the water the spring produces? Who manages the spring? Is it still considered to have healing properties? What is the extent of "spa" or "resort" businesses/facilities that depend on the spring's existence?
GGBiscuit (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a primary source here. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No information on whereabouts/condition/use/extent of Tunbridge Wells spring 

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for
Royal Tunbridge Wells
Coordinates are currently given as:
51° 13′ 32″ N, 0° 15′ 52″ E
51.225556, 0.264444
These coordinates are not correct. Click on Google Maps link to see why. Instead of taking one to the centre of Royal Tunbridge Wells, one ends up in a field south of Horn's Lodge Lane, about 250 metres west south west of Stacey's Wood, about 12 km north of the centre of Royal Tunbridge Wells
—
The correct (or more correct at least) coordinates would seem to be:
loc: 51.1289° N, 0.2608° E.
I obtained these values simply by typing "latitude and longitude royal tunbridge wells UK" into Google. The first result gave me loc: 51.1289° N, 0.2608° E which takes one to the centre of Tunbridge Wells as opposed to the middle of a field 12 km to its north. 124.185.15.244 (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - fixed. Clicking on the Google Maps link now takes one to the centre of the town. 124.185.15.244 (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 

message: I apologize, I'm a newbie. I added citation #58 about Tunbridge Wells being mentioned in Fanny Burney's novel, Camilla. Since adding this, I have learned the book's publication date (1796) but cannot find how to add that to the citation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathsuds (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: DoneCharles (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation change help? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Royal Tunbridge Wells. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081003202759/http://www.kent.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/26B76DCA-8628-4DAF-886A-2B9B766625A1/0/ep07tunbridgewells.pdf to http://www.kent.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/26B76DCA-8628-4DAF-886A-2B9B766625A1/0/ep07tunbridgewells.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110929043538/http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Press-Releases/BIGGER-AND-BETTER-SERVICES-FROM-TUNBRIDGE-WELLS-106c.aspx to http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Press-Releases/BIGGER-AND-BETTER-SERVICES-FROM-TUNBRIDGE-WELLS-106c.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Tummy Tunny Wells" is a slang term and as I said in the edit summary the only people that use it'are uneducated chavs and the cite is simply a transcript of chavs having a conversation ....., I don't believe anyone has ever called it "Tummy Wells" and are unlikely to ever do so so it's pointless mentioning it IMHO. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite agree. I have been to this town numerous times and I have never ever heard it called that. Beau Nash would spin in his grave if that slang ever became a common name for his town.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: He's probably already spinning just at the sheer awfulness of the name! , –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Hence why the page is titled "Royal Tunbridge Wells" (and I try my best to ensure that the full name is used whenever I come across it on Wikipedia), however "Tunbridge Wells" is an accurate historic name that is also a commonly used alternative. Your proposal is not.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

text: That source refers to a farmer giving names to surrounding fields and has nothing to do with the town, or should we add Tommy Spades or Free Rings to the article too as per the source? A rarely used slang term in the intro would give this GA a bit of WP:UNDUE which isn't helpful.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Opinions only mean anything if they have been reported in reliable published sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, certainly not a dictionary of slang. I do not see any reason to include this as things stand.Charles (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And as I said earlier, I go to this town regularly and I have never heard the residents ever use that expression.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Between 2012-2014 I must've gone there like 20 times .... and like you not once did I see the name nor had anyone said it ..... So I think we can all agree the slang term shouldn't ever be included. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

text: I have to agree, this debate is ridiculous. I agree that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but what kind of an encyclopedia only keeps what the editors find appealing? Now that the user has backed it up with quite a few references, I see no reason for it to be removed again.78.157.8.97 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For a start, none of those are WP:RS, second what is the ISBN for these books that supposedly use it? And thirdly even if there is a passing reference, that is not indicative of it being a common name for the town and thus shouldn't be included in the article, let alone in the intro. I would say this is a case of WP:HORSEMEAT.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

text: The C of E's correct - those aren't reliable sources and I don't consider the book or link to a random users comment as a cite and I don't think it's enough to warrant inclusion of the slang name ..... so I've reverted the recent addition. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

text: All of which aren't reliable sources, You and your friends may aswell give up as it's not going on the article. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 09:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tunny Wells" 

message: The page is protected for three days. Please use that time to obtain consensus for the content that is being edit-warred over. Further edit-warring after protection is lifted may result in blocks being handed out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: Should the article include the slang term "Tunny Wells" ? (I personally don't think it should but as we're not reaching any agreements above I think it's best to seek opinions from outsiders), Thanks, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion the debate above has been focused on the wrong issues. The chief issue is one of weight. It is irrelevant how anyone "feels" about it use. It is also irrelevant whether it is the common name. That is an article titling standard, and has nothing to say as to whether we mention an alternate title in the lead or elsewhere WP:OTHERNAMES, on the other hand, is relevant: "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." So, we return to weight. Does a survey of reliable sources reveal use of the title in sufficient number such that its use is warranted – making it a "significant viewpoint ... that ha[s] been published by reliable sources, in proportion to [the] prominence of [that] viewpoint in ... published, reliable sources"? Having set what I believe to be the correct stage for the question, I wished to finish this post by falling on one side of the issue or the other, citing to source results in support, but I literally have to run out of the door.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the sources that have been provided are not RSes and all I have looked for of this term indicates that it is an uncommon slang term but is in no way widespread or covered in RS that you would expect it to be.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Where are the ISBN numbers so we can check?  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

text: No the article should not include the term it doesnt appear to be widely used if at all outside of internet blogs so is hardly of note in the long history of the town to include in the article. I suspect most people from Tunbridge Wells would look at you strange if you used the term. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Fuhghettaboutit already debunk the claims that those sources were reliable or that it was even in widespread use.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

text: I disagree here. For a start the majority of those in support are IPs, most of which have either duplicated !votes or have just copied almost word for word what others are saying without responding to the case that sources provides aren't RS. Not to mention they are not giving any valid policy based reasons for support aside of "Me and my friends Rupert and Roy use it" which is a case of WP:LIKE and WP:USEFUL. After all, an RFC is not a vote.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @TheEditorUK2015: You may not close the discussion as you participated in it and took a side on the issue; you would have an obvious conflict of interest in doing so. Any closure by you (or by me, or by anyone who has participated) is patently improper. That basic tenet is reflected at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure and WP:BADNAC and specifically for an RfC by Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. See also WP:NACD and WP:INVOLVED by analogy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: Substituted at 05:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Royal Tunbridge Wells. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6WOX548Q3?url=http://www.twbc-faq.co.uk/activekb/questions.php?questionid=470 to http://www.twbc-faq.co.uk/activekb/questions.php?questionid=470
*Added  tag to http://www2.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=5
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001070557/http://www.tunbridgewellsmuseum.org/default.aspx?page=1627 to http://www.tunbridgewellsmuseum.org/default.aspx?page=1627
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Royal Tunbridge Wells. 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/20130212053951/http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/wealdwarriorsrlfc to http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/wealdwarriorsrlfc/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Toponym should have it's own standalone section at the top of the article because it defines the placename, which everything in this article is rooted to. Without a name it is nowhere. Toponym shouldn't be a subsection in the history section because the name of the town has already been used in the aforementioned section. Toponym should be the first section in the main body of the article due its singular importance. Currently positioning is like putting the cart before the horse. 150.143.66.222 (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree - in this case it looks like a name that is relatively recent and therefore it makes more sense to put it at the end of the history section (as opposed to the toponomy of places which have had their name since prehistoric times). Bellowhead678 (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section "Toponym" should not be an afterthought, it defines the name of the place 

message: Under the governance section, in the paragraph beginning "The Member of Parliament (MP) for Tunbridge Wells is the Conservative Greg Clark,[27] whose majority at the 2017 election was 16,465.[28] In September 2019, Clark was one of 21 Conservative MP's to have the whip removed, after failing to back the Government, in keeping the option of a No-deal Brexit on the negotiating table."
In the phrase "one of 21 Conservative MP's" please delete the apostrophe in "MP's". The plural of MP is MPs as shown in the following sentence in the same paragraph. The apostrophe is NOT a way of forming a plural.
Many thanks,
Romanwriter Romanwriter (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thank you for pointing that out. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2024