Talk:Woking

message: 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)
replies: text: Good point,I've removed it. It is covered in the appropriate section already. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header Introduction 

message: 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. Miscellieneous (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: News just in.  Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Very amusing! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If I were you, I wouldn't sweat too much over this proposal, Murgatroyd49. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Query

message: 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)
replies: text: Where woud you put it? Perhaps a section on its own? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: Southern entrance to Woking station:  taken last year. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  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)
replies: text:  Apologies, misread the date! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Hi  Looks great!! Thanks very much. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for photographs 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have nominated the page for a Good Article review. Mertbiol (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Preparing for Good Article nomination

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Woking Borough Council]]