Talk:Worcester Park/Archive 1

message: The article said that Worcester park was named after the Earl of Worcester, "appointed in 1606".  I can't make any sense of this statement, so I removed it for the time being.  Can anyone figure out how to word it correctly? --Slashme 16:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at the source and see if it can be reworded.  MRSC 17:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I see no reason not to trust the local government source but as its not relevant to the district its ok to leave it out. MRSC 18:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1606

message: I added some figures on the ethnicities of people living in Worcester Park, seeing as reading this stub before, anyone would think that Worcester Park is made up predominantly of Nepalese people. --Hammer Raccoon 16:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community 

message: The answer is really "No, it did not".  It seems to have been archived to attempt to make a point that Worcester park is "in London", and to add the wikiproject flag.
I have no objection to facts.  Equally n the talk pages I have no objection to opinions.  But I do have an objection to the rewriting of history.
Worcester Park is in Both London and Surrey.  The boundary runs through it.  My mother lives in Worcester park, in Surrey with services provioded by Epsom and Ewell (or whatever name it's known by now).  The town centre is in London.
Fiddle Faddle 07:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is archiving a talk page, retaining the edit history and providing a link to it rewriting history. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not about long and pointless discussions. Please be more civil in future. MRSC 07:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise if you feel I was uncivil.  I take a different view of lack of civility form you.  Fiddle Faddle 08:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did the talk page need archiving? 

message: I have reinstated these on the simple basis that they add citations (in one case) and local authority and notability to the article.  I disagree with the interpretation of WP:NOT a directory as being relevant to the deletion, and I especially disagree with the link stated as a citation having been removed. Fiddle Faddle 19:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have placed the details of this on External links on town pages for other opinions.  Thanks --Nigel  (Talk) 12:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am content with this since it will, I assume, reach a consensus.  Thank you  :) Fiddle Faddle 12:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the comments on External links on town pages I can see that I am wrong.  That's cool, and the discussion achieved precisely what I think we both appreciate: consensus.  I see the status of the source page is not as useful as I had hoped.  The challenge is that it was, at the time, the only apparently authoritative (well obviously not now!) source for the notable residents.  Certainly I'd appreciate suggestions on better sources.  Fiddle Faddle 20:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinstatement of various links 

message: Worcester Park is in a "peculiar" location.  Parts of it are London, parts are Surrey.  I have added the banner alongside the London one since both projects will have an interest in this "Frontier Town"  Fiddle Faddle 15:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Surrey banner

message: I just want to let you know that the S3 bus route now ends at Old Malden. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  S3 bus route