Talk:Surbiton

message: Is the blatent plug (probably by the business owners themselves) for an otherwise unremarkable Fish and Chip shop and Delicatessen really necessary? Maybe worth a mention as a directory of commercial establishments but nothing more.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.97.100 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Food drink & Entertainment

message: I've removed the blatant plug for Surbiton High School. If they want to advertise their school, let them do it elsewhere.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.95.58 (talk) 
:As I believe they have at Surbiton High School. I believe it is an aspiration of wiki to have an article on every school, but certainly your elision of a piece of powder-puff is no great loss. Kbthompson 11:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Surbiton High School For Girls

message: I removed the stuff from freelist.com as it is copyright according to their website: FreeLists.com established 1996 © online 1998 All rights reserved. MRSC 06:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: freelist

message: According to Julie Sampson's "The Kingston Book"  there was never a plan to put long distance railway lines "through" Kingston. The original plan was to skirt the bottom of Surbiton Hill - I guess she means somewhere around where the Assembly Rooms and Maple Road is now.
Thinking about it, this makes sense - because if the South coast line ran much closer to Kingston than the Assembly Rooms - or Penrhyn Road at a push - then it would either have to cut through Kingston Hill/Coombe Hill, or it would have had to cross the Thames twice, either of which would have involved very significant groundwork and construction.
Reaching Kingston but avoiding Kingston Hill and the Thames would mean a very sharp turn. But I'm not enough of a railway buff to know what turning circles trains can do. They plumped for a cutting through Surbiton Hill instead, though. How did that happen, and why?
We don't want the article to perpetuate myths. But there's no doubt that the railway expansion was significant to Surbiton, so I'm not suggesting we don't mention it at all. Okay, you could say the same thing for practically all London commuter belt suburbs, but I think there are things that make Surbiton different. For example, the railway expansion enabled the Victorian-era wealthy middle classes to make one-way leisure boat trips on the Thames, and Surbiton was particularly well placed to take advantage of this trade.
Point is, there are conflicting sources, and I don't know how to word it to make the known facts clear. Squashy 02:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too have read that it was a bit of a myth about going straight through the center of Kingston, but to go up slightly closer to the then outskirts. I will try and remember where I read that, definitely not in a book by Julie Sampson. I believe that a cutting was chosen though Surbiton Hill as that provided an easy and cheap source for soil/stone etc to build the railway banks that the lines run on either side of Surbiton, as back then it was far more marshy, e.g. around what is now Berrylands, and between Hersham and Esher where the line crosses the River Mole. Jrhilton 21:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Railway myth 

message: In our article about William Heinemann it reads that he "was born in 1863, in Surbiton, Surrey." Could Surbiton have been part of Surrey at that time or is it more likely that this information is incorrect? If it is correct, when were the borders moved? __meco (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not appear to have been answered, either here or elsewhere. Surbiton was a borough of Surrey until 1965, when it was incorporated into the newly created Greater London area. LynwoodF (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formerly part of Surrey? 

message: The article starts by saying there are many Art Deco courts -- what is that? Maybe it should be linked to something for those unfamiliar with English city terms, or whatever it is. --AW (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I live in the Surbiton area and I find this usage rather odd. Court is often used in the names of blocks of flats, but not in isolation as a generic term, at least not in the version of English I use. LynwoodF (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's a court? 

message: A recent edit of an innocuous passing comment has created anomalies of which the editor may not be aware if he/she is not from this area. Until 1965 Kingston was called Kingston-upon-Thames (with hyphens). The hyphens were removed to distinguish the new expanded Royal Borough from the old one. Richmond, like both Surbiton and Kingston, was in Surrey until 1965. The expression 'Richmond, London' was not in use before the creation of Greater London. I shall restore the original simple wording while leaving the links intact. See also the articles on Municipal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames and Municipal Borough of Richmond (Surrey). LynwoodF (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neighbouring towns - lead section 

message: Though Surbiton only received its current name in 1869, the name is attested as Suberton in 1179, Surbeton in 1263, Surpeton in 1486, and finally Surbiton 1597.
''
I can make no sense of that. So what was it called between 1597 and 1869, if not Surbiton?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.86.210 (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: added the text concerned, and may be able to explain? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern Surbiton did not exist until the arrival of the railway. The new development was first called "Kingston-on-Railway", but later the name was transferred from the hamlet where Surbiton Road, Kingston now is. See Thomas Pooley. LynwoodF (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we don't have a mention of Surbiton for every year since 1179. We only have specific mentions that show the evolution of the name: Suberton > Surbeton > Surpeton >Surbiton > (Kingston-upon-Railway) > Surbiton. To say that it was always called Surbiton is inaccurate, and the etymology section reflects that. Perhaps a more appropriate wording would be "Though Surbiton only officially received its current name in 1869..." --Michail (blah) 14:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology