Talk:Leatherhead

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: The Head==== Editing 

message: 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)
thread_title: The Head

message: 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)
replies: text: Article considerably improved since 6 January (old version: ).  Comment above no longer relevant. Halsteadk 15:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LEATHERHEAD FC 

message: 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)
replies: text: Article considerably improved since 6 January (old version: ).  Comment above no longer relevant. Halsteadk 15:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up required 

message: 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)
thread_title: Leisure activities

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MichaelCaine.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sybil Thorndike as Joan of Arc.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:CWoA logo.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  Churches 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Taxis 

message: 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)
thread_title: Model

message: 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)
thread_title:  Town  Centre 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi  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)
thread_title:  Supreme Court decision affects Leatherhead