Talk:Cranleigh Waters

Surrey Low‑importance

	Surrey portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

River Thames (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames articles

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cranley or Cranleigh Waters?

I ask that this article be renamed Cranley Waters because although the village of Cranley was renamed Cranleigh in 1867 for postal purposes this stream was not renamed because it didn't need to be.Aetheling1125 11:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aetheling1125. Do you have a source for this? A google search for "Cranleigh Waters" (including quotes) brings up 2140 results, whereas one for "Cranley Waters" (again with the quote marks brings up only the Wikipedia article with your amended spelling. The Environment Agency uses the Cranleigh spelling. Best regards Mertbiol (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No response to request for a source for the "Cranley Waters" spelling, so I have reverted the edit made to the article. Best regards Mertbiol (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Postal towns in people's postal addresses have helped to standardise a good deal in the country as to minor WP:TRIVIA, and provide a basic indication of any settlement being notable, with parish status and other factors considered. On a similar basis, Cranleigh Waters just about IMHO meets the criteria based on WP:MERGE others have made at WP:UKRIVERS because it is a tributary of main river which is a tributary (and no more than that) and is of about 10 miles (16 km) including meanders and 5 miles (8.0 km) point-to-point.

There is certainly a lot more that could be added in terms of understanding, someone has put the Waters do not run through the village, if you are a landowner or farmer of that area then you consider it part of the village, unfortunately that was an urban-only interpretation of the English village system. - Adam37 Talk 21:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cranleigh Waters. 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/20120424060625/http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/mapsearch.aspx to http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/mapsearch.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cranleigh Waters. 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/20131005215639/http://www.ceh.ac.uk/products/publications/documents/hydrometricregister_final_withcovers.pdf to http://www.ceh.ac.uk/products/publications/documents/HydrometricRegister_Final_WithCovers.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]