Surrey Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

As you may already know I've spent a lot of time improving the Woking article. My long-term objective has been to get to a Featurd Article status. After 2 years I finally think the time has come to submit an entry to get it to the Featured Article status.:-):-):-) Though before we do this we have to add the finishing touches to the article. For example, it would be a great help if the actuve members of the Wikiproject will help by improving the grammar of the article, adding references, add information and just do any other general things that need to be done for it to be submitted.

I really hope you will be able to help me achieve my aim and look forward to seeing you help.:-);-):-D

Thanks ever so much, pbl1998Pbl1998 (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just my personal opinon, but I think it would be better to run it through the WP:GA process first, as this usually sorts out a number of the errors and throws up all the possible issues that could appear in a FA review. I understand that you've put lots of work into the article and I don't want to see it fail an FA based on a few things that would easily have been noticed (and potentially even fixed!) at GA level. These are just my thoughts, feel free to completely ignore me! :) Thanks, Glanis^Talk 11:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no-I have considered this. I completely understand what you are saying. Now you say this, I feel you may be correct. Anyway, if you can help with the article in the attempt to get it to GA/FA please, please do.

P.S. Also, ypou may see I have tried to archive some of the page. If you could help with getting the link below the template to where it should be (next to Archive 1 on the template) that would be a great help. I've asked in the archiving talk page but their is no guaranteeing they will reply.

I've done this, its super easy, all you need to do is create a new archive page with the correct name (so the next one would be "Archive_3" put the archive material onto it and then it will auto-update the header. Thanks, Glanis^Talk 12:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, pbl1998Pbl1998 (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest, pbl1998Pbl1998 (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Article as a non-notable place in its own right, or not?

Do you have any views on Gatton, Surrey whether it is worthy of its own article?
Consider: we already have Gatton (UK Parliament constituency) for when it was a famed Rotten Borough, a Gatton Park article and is now almost entirely subsumed by Reigate. Read also other Surrey contributor's compelling counter-arguments with policy.

This debate is concluded by the formation by Consensus of new guidance on writing about depopulated places/renamed places at WP:UKCITIES and WP:UKTOWNS which was always also applicable to small places and more recently expanded to notable in their own right VILLAGES.

There's been an attempt to expand and tidy Stoke Park, Guildford. What's the next one?

Many thanks, if efforts are limited to the park then adapt the panel on the right from Chichester please now, as per the high quality edits so far. A little of the nature would be good (I see this park manages to make its rabbits stand out, a photo of a rare bird/rabbits/even mass winter fun snowscene may add something). Surrey: Things you can do would be wonderful for everyone and comments on how to bring articles up to stratch and we would welcome more assessment and expert wikipedia improvements to articles, as we are almost leading the way in terms of counties. Editors intend to keep it that way. Adam37 (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information on The Home of Compassion, formerly Boyle Farm Estate, Thames Ditton, Surrey is very scant. It is no longer a nursing home, and I believe is not inhabited. The government took over the running of the home, I believe in the nineteen eighties. I have a personal interest in the property since in 1934 the then owner/occupier was Eva Mary, Reverend Mother Superior and her order of Anglican nuns. Eva Mary became Mother Superior after the death of the founder and previous Mother Superior. The nuns, as has been rightly stated looked after the elderly. Then later purchased a house across the High Street and took in abandoned/unwanted children. I was the first of those children. Eva Mary, Mother Superior heard of my plight and took me into her care in August 1934.

As a child I heard legends of Anne Boleyn trying to escape the wroth of Henry 111V by fleeing Hampton Court Palace,via a secret passage under the River Thames. The palace is situated downstream on the opposite riverbank. Secret passages there were, and I remember going down in the cellars with others and an old man named Jackson, who had worked in the house and gardens prior to the nuns purchase of the property. His memory was almost gone, but he would tell of carrying gold plates and such down into the cellars for his master. Someone I recall found entrance to the passage, but the stench halted further investigation.

The nuns allowed Jackson to stay when they purchased the home and he lived there until his death. Mary Melloyme (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Haskett[reply]

Thank you for this interesting account Melloyme. Wikipedia does not however make use of personal memories that have not been published. I am sure there are local historians in the Thames Ditton area who would be most interested in your recollections. Perhaps the local library service could advise on such people.--Charles (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This September the UK is taking part for the first time in the international photography competition Wiki Loves Monuments. Participants will be invited to submit pictures of listed buildings of significant importance (grades I or grade II*), as recorded by English Heritage. The main external website for competitors can be found here, and you can leave a message there if you have queries about competing. Do please join in, and let people in your local area know of this excellent way in which both existing and new Wiki users can help improve the encyclopaedia by contributing photographs of local listed structures. What about organizing a local Wikimeet to attract new people?

In preparation for the start of the competition on 1st September there is still quite a lot of work to do, and we would like to ask for the help of members of this wikiproject. Your local and expert knowledge will be invaluable in ensuring that the lists of eligible buildings are up to date and correctly formatted. If you look at Listed buildings in the United Kingdom you will see how many structures are included. If you then follow the link to Listed buildings in England, you can get to the detailed lists for your area. Alternatively have a look at the WLM planning table. Can you help to ensure that the lists for your area are up to date and well presented?

Some of the lists have been semi-automatically generated from data provided by English Heritage. These use pre formatted templates (eg EH header) which will make it much easier for competition participants to upload their photographs to Commons as an automated process. Please don't change the template structure, as we need to ensure that the templates are properly compatible with the WLM standards that are in use worldwide. The format will allow a bot automatically to collect the information and to put it into the international Monuments Database.

The data still needs the attention of local editors:

• The "title" may need wikilinking to a suitable article name (whether we currently have that article or not). If there are several buildings in one street all of the wikilinks point at an article about the street; however each entry has a separate line in the list.
• The "location" column looks and sorts better if just the parish or town is included (& wikilinked).
• The "date completed" column sometimes has eg "C19" for 19th century, and "C1850" for c. 1850 when the date is uncertain - these need to be corrected manually.
• The "grid ref & lat & long" (which is occasionally missing) may be given to 8 characters — only 6 (grid ref) or 5 (lat & long) are really needed.
• Clicking on the "list entry number" should take you to the data sheet for that entry on the English Heritage database which can be checked if needed for details.
• The image column should have a picture added if we already have a suitable image on Commons. (N.B. if you are going to be taking photos yourself for inclusion in the competition don't upload them until September)
• References may be added according to normal WP practice.

For further information, please see Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom.

If you have any queries, please post them not below but on the Organizers' help page on Commons.

Anything you can do to help improve these lists will be much appreciated. The final deadline for cleaning up is 31st August.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow participants may like the change I tried to implement: this enabled us to see who has been awarded an award for their work to the project from other editors, via a slightly different shading on the list of members. One editor did not like this, within two days of my introducing this. I would ask why mutual recognition is unacceptable to that editor? Whether editors being able to appreciate others is 'grading' of members is highly doubtful, see WP:AWARDS. All participants are equal, some are simply more equal than others. Really that is true. If black and white table for complete egalitarianism is required then a conversation should be had here. Other projects put red users where people wish to be put as past and even their award-winners are set out in their list of members. Remember anyone can give an award except to themselves - unless policed and monitored rigorously by all participants it is only a partial indication of how much work an editor has done to a project. We have a number of experts in particular fields of the county it seems. Why not allow people to recognise them? - Adam37 Talk 14:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you might have seen in the Signpost last week, there's currently a drive to go through the million 19th century images released by the British Library last year, and identify all the maps, with a view to their being georeferenced by BL volunteers, and then uploaded to Commons early next year. After the first week, over eight thousand new maps have been identified, with 40% of the target books looked at -- see the status page for the latest figures, and more information.

A part that may specifically interest this project is

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Synoptic index/England - South East

which currently shows pink templated links for 309 Flickr book pages still to be looked at. (Though there are lots of other parts of England, and indeed of the world, still to be looked through as well).

Any help looking through these would be very much appreciated -- as well as the maps (and ground plans) for tagging, you may well also find other interesting or useful non-map views that may be worth considering or uploading for articles on Surrey and elsewhere in the South-East. (If uploading, please use the ingestion template described here, which sets up some appropriate image templates and categories).

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template ((Transclude lead excerpt)).

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any point in this article, Westborough, Surrey, it is about a former council estate in Guildford and the information would be better included in the appropriate section of that article. Can I propose it for deletion? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In researching North Cheam tube station I've been reading in a number of sources that the Northern line was planned, albeit surreptitiously, to be extended to Epsom, with a station at Castle Parade in Ewell,^[1][2][3] however I'm not sure if any of the following sources are reliable:

and I imagine Epsom libraries are almost certainly shut. Does anybody own any books which talk about this?--Launchballer 12:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of it in the 1972 London Rail Study. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The various links seem to be mixing up the older plans to extend the Northern Line down towards Sutton using the Wimbledon to Sutton line & maybe going beyond with some post war ideas. Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Surrey Heath § Justifications for removal of politics content - please discuss here before re-instating. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a project for missing civil parishes at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. There are 2 missing parishes in Surrey, all exist but only as a redirect but should have separate articles, they are:

• Caterham on the Hill
• Caterham Valley

A total of 2, see User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes (3)#Surrey. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the participants @Pbl1998, Adam37, Mrmatiko, Willrocks10, Glanis, Abtract, Vox Humana 8', Cooltrainer Hugh, Ginyild, Jaguar, Motmit, Nunquam Dormio, Timrollpickering, Oddbodz, Arriva436, Charlesdrakew, Jhall1, Cardofk, Ladytwentytwo, Murgatroyd49, CreativeNorth, Spy-cicle, and Wikieditor019: to get more input. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from ((cite web)), ((cite journal)) and ((doi)).

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tools in the tools section all lead to an Error 404. I'm just wondering if it can be fixed or it should be deleted? Thanks - Wikieditor019 (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to ((WikiProject banner shell)), which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to ((WikiProject banner shell)), and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass ((WPBannerMeta)) a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mubarak Mosque, Tilford#Requested move 22 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted bridge length in the Quick Facts is actually the headway, or height above the water. The bridge itself is much longer. Ravenviz (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenviz: Could you provide a link or a quote please? I cannot find the place where this is mentioned. Thanks 86.141.148.229 (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenviz: After a bit more searching, I think you are referring to this article: M3 Chertsey Bridge. I have made a change to the infobox to reflect your suggestion. Is this now correct? Thanks 86.141.148.229 (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is correct. Apologies, I know the area so well that I did not notice the article referred to 'Surrey Bridge', it is indeed the M3 bridge at Chertsey Thames Side. 147.148.211.16 (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is ongoing at Template talk:Infobox English county#Proposal: remove the ethnicity section which is likely of interest to this project. The original proposal is for straight removal of the ethnicity field from the template; the population field would remain. This and a modified proposal would have the same effect on Surrey. A result of the change, if consented to, is the restriction of demographics, other than population to the local authority administrative sections of the county infoboxes. It has no effect on editors placing reliably sourced statistics in the body of the article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Frimley § Town/village discussion. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]