Talk:Teddington

message: If I were to right a sub-section on the two main shopping streets of Teddington would I be allowed to write the names of the shops or are there rules against that?Thebaronoflondon 18:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any rules necessarily forbids that, but I also don't see that there's much point. Unfortunately -- sorry, that's PoV; if you prefer, "fortunately" -- (i) Teddington is much like other suburbs; (ii) the chainization [?] of the British shopping street is advanced. There's Andrews the most unusual camera shop, there are some good restaurants, there may well be one or two other remarkable places that I can't think of offhand, and, well, there are lots of shops that are the same as they are anywhere else. What were you thinking of adding? -- Hoary 23:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of Shops Allowed

message: The allegedly famous residents Charles Duncombe, Daragh Conor and Rufus Ferrabee are so famous that they're redlinked. Duncombe existed. Ferrabee only appears in commercial scrapes of Wikipedia; his article in Wikipedia was deleted. (I've read it; it looks like some schoolboy fantasy.) How about Conor? Without proof that he's notable, I'll soon delete mention of him. -- Hoary 01:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted mention of him. -- Hoary 11:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've now deleted mention of him for at least the third time. Perhaps he's just some schoolboy joke. -- Hoary 02:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose it's just that nobody thought of him until you did. He's certainly worth listing. -- Hoary 00:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Famous residents"?

message: The infobox tells us that the MP is the MP for Twickenham. He has his own article. I don't see the point of summarizing it within this article too, and so I'm about to delete the section. -- Hoary 23:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an infobox on the right. One section is clearly labeled "Politics". Under that is "UK Parliament". Next to that is "Twickenham". On clicking that you reach Twickenham (UK Parliament constituency). To the right of that is an infobox, clearly saying that the MP is Vincent Cable. Where's the difficulty? Or do you really want this information to be duplicated in the article about every suburb within the constituency (Hampton Hill, etc etc), each of which would need updating on the event of the retirement, death, electoral defeat, etc., of Cable? -- Hoary 00:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The MP for Teddington

message: OK guys, don't go mad. I've added a very much enlarged history section, tell me what you think. I'm sure it can be improved and changed. I think some more should be added to the modern day bit, but I'm all conked out. Give it a chance. Thanks. Alexllew 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Why is Teddington called "an area of greater London" when it's just a town. Isn't it? Alexllew 16:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that a town is an urban area of middling size, surrounded by countryside. The Angel of Islington 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we perhaps say its a suburb of greater London? Alexllew (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think of any objection to that. The Angel of Islington (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Town/area

message: There is no towpath in Teddington. The towpath is on the other side of the river at Ham. The linked article is therefore probably misnamed, and if the murders took place in Ham, they don't belong in the Teddington article. Comments? Motmit (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From the Teddington towpath murders page: "The girls had been on a bicycle trip on Sunday, 31 May 1953, and were seen cycling along a towpath beside the Thames River in Teddington about 11am". It would, therefore, seem that there was a towpath along the Thames in Teddington in 1953.Catiline63 (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that article must be incorrect. There was no towpath on the river bank on the Teddington side in 1953 any more than there is now. Motmit (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Just for the record: The FOI source refers to "Teddington Lock" and "Towpath Murders" - no mention of "Teddington Towpath Murders" is made. If the murders took place along the towpath, this can only refer to the Ham side of the Thames, as there is no towpath along the Teddington side of the river. The fact seems to be that careless journalism may have incorrectly referred to a "towpath in Teddington" as opposed to "towpath [along the river] near Teddington Lock".  --Technopat (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Towpath Murders

message: One of the editors who revert my edits lives in Hampshire and another proclaims that he, or she, is against the censorship of Wikipedia. Hence, the first is ignorant of the area he attempts to edit information on and the other is a hypocrite who is willing to suppress a widely-held opinion. 
As an individual I have every right to edit this page as I provide an accurate and fair portrayal of the area.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.113.141 (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one has any "right" to edit this page without adapting to consensus, and meeting with Wikipedia's policies.  In order to present aneutral point of view we have to be very careful with descriptive phrases.  So far no-one else has agreed with your edits, which is a good indication you are editing against the consensus of what is appropriate.  David Underdown (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Every right

message: I am almost blind, but I feel that the red spot labeled Teddington in the map is on the south bank. pietro79.54.62.180 (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  location 

message: Pinging George teddington about his series of edits: George, you do realize that this is an encyclopedia article? Like any other London suburb (or if you prefer, "suburban enclave"), Teddington may well have estate agents keen to attract the free-spending children of Russian, American, Azeri, or other despots/plutocrats; but Wikipedia isn't the place for such advertising.
If I'm missing something and you instead consider your edits as adding neutral, informative material towards an encyclopedic end, please comment here so that I'll understand properly. Thanks! -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Puffery -- or should I say, what looks to me like puffery -- has been added to this article repeatedly and over a long time. Here's an example from over a decade ago. (And as the history will show, the IP was most insistent on its reintroduction. See also "Leafy, green and highly desirable", above.) Headhitter, you seem to be a level-headed specialist in southwest London: In your judgement, is this article more than averagely affected by puffery? Or am I perhaps deluded -- is this not puffery at all but instead a neutral description of what happens to be a leafy, attractive, and hugely affluent suburban enclave? -- Hoary (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I sense that David Biddulph agrees with me. -- Hoary (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the accolade and for alerting me, Hoary. I think you're right about the puffery. I've removed quite a lot of it but there's still a way to go. Incidentally, Teddington may well be affluent but the article, as currently written, doesn't back up this claim. Headhitter (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Yuuuge affluence, etc