Talk:Crawley

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crawley article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Crawley has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 22, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
March 3, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
April 9, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Good article

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sussex Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

History

This article woefully disregards the complex history of the town as it now exists. It is written without regard to the fact that the New Town, like others in the UK, swallowed up pre-existing communities, some of which, like Ifield and Crawley have been around for centuries. The article here covers that history. The listing of all those neighbourhoods simply adds a large number of stubbed articles, again without reference to any previous history. I am not local to the area, simply one who has a little knowledge, so would be loath to do any rewriting - but someone ought! Peter Shearan 16:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now attempted to right the wrong! I am sure more could be added though to make the article less of a boring listing! We really must get rid of all those neighbourhoods posing as villages (see Category: Villages in West Sussex and the comment on the talk page thereon Peter Shearan 17:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It is written without regard to the fact that the New Town, like others in the UK, swallowed up pre-existing communities, some of which, like Ifield and Crawley have been around for centuries." - Quite right, and I was wondering if a little something on the Worth controversy should be included. It would be hard to source. Makron1n 01:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links Removed

Was it a policy decision to remove all the local links, except the borough council's? Not sure why they should not be listed. Can anyone explain?Tafkam 19:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links should not be advertising things such as local B&B's or shops. They should not be personal blogs, they should be of high quality. I removed the following.

In Crawley (Guide to Crawley)

Crawley Online; information portal & directory about the West Sussex town

Crawley Neighbourhood Watch

Crawley Business Directory

Francis Frith Photos of Crawley taken by the :Victorian photographer Francis Frith

If you feel that any of these are suitable then make a case for their inclusion and if you make a reasonable case for their inclusion I will not revert your edit. However, when i skimmed through them none seemd to suitable as external links. David D. (Talk) 18:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I bow to your greater knowledge of 'allowed' links Tafkam 19:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not dictating and certainly if you really think these links are worth while I will probably accept your view. These are rarely black and white cases. Look at them in light of what i say above and see if you still think they are useful. If you think they are, then put them back in. I will defer to your judgement. David D. (Talk) 01:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can see your point; I can't say as I feel overly strongly about it either way. We will see if anyone else notices/cares. I only ask really because I noticed it on my Watchlist, and wondered the reasoning. Tafkam 09:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion which has taken place, I was surprised to see one of the external link re-appear. I think that it as perhaps the least encyclopaedic value of any of the previously removed links. I am about to revert to the previous version (with only the borough council link remaining), subject to further discussion.Tafkam 13:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Control

As of May 2006 elections, according to the Crawley Borough Council website council composition following results: * 16 Labour * 19 Conservative * 2 Liberal Democrat; thus conservatives have a majority of 51.4% Accordingly, the council's executive is made up of 8 conservative councillors. Therefore, it is clear that the authority is conservative-controlled at present. Accordingly, edits which have changed status to NOC have been reverted twice. Please do not alter again without citation of any change. Tafkam 17:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - my mistake; although the council website still shows Conservative control on its elections page, and its executive, the previous editor is correct, as Councillor Marcella Head joined the LibDem party in early December changing the balance. My apologies once again. Tafkam 18:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is amazing that the council's own website contradicts itself. Part of the reason for this could be that at the time of elections they can freely note changes, but the defection of a councillor from one political party to another mid-term is maybe harder to make a note of without it comming across as political comment. However the Liberal Democrats have been happy to note the fact on their own sites http://crawleylibdems.org.uk/news/000329.html?PHPSESSID=801ceb21 http://www.brighton-hovelibdems.org.uk/news/000290.html?PHPSESSID=801ceb21

Proposed rewrite

There is much to be written about Crawley, especially (as noted above) regarding the planning and development of the New Town. I have created a proposed structure at one of my user subpages here (ignore its misleading title!), based on the layout used on Featured Article-status town/city articles such as Weymouth and Sheffield. Feel free to add bits, or comments, ideas etc. The idea will be, if I ever get to the stage where I have written as much as I can, to move it across here to replace the current text of the article. Hassocks5489 13:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A much-needed boost - will try to offer some assistance where I can. Tafkam 13:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We (Hassocks5489 and Tafkam) have now completed the rewrite (well, as far as we can!), so I am moving the result across to this page now. Note that although the full rewrite history will not be reflected in the Edit History here, it will be preserved on the user subpage I used for the rewrite (here). Hassocks5489 19:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

I have reviewed this article, and it overall meets the Good Article criteria quite easily. It's prose is well written and well constructed, easy to read, and it is sufficiently sourced with ample references. The lead provides a good summary of the article. The images also have appropriate copyright tags as well.

The geography section seems to be a little image-heavy, and I think it would look better if the table referencing the map image was positioned in closer proximity to the map itself. Also, the table is color-coordinated, but the map is not. It would help if the map was also color-coordinated. Why does the first bullet item mentioned manor royal industrial estate mentioned that it is allocated a color, but it doesn't show up in the table?

A couple of minor structural changes should be made to be in compliance with WP:UKCITIES.

Remove demographics from the geography section & put it into its own section. Demographics seems like it has enough information to warrant its own main section, and doesn't appear to be too related to geography.

Combine geology and climate with the geography section. These are more closely related together, and agrees with the UK Cities guideline (also agrees with WP:USCITY, too.

Other than these little issues, I think this article is pretty much at the Good Article level. I am placing it on hold at WP:GAC until the issues are addressed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review here, Derek. To take each point in turn:

I have removed one image from Geography and into the "New Town" section, where it also seems appropriate as it shows a typical residential street within the new town development.
I have moved the neighbourhoods image next to the table.
I'm not sure how to edit the map myself, but I will try to work out how to do this or ask somebody to have a go.
Manor Royal is a special case in that it is allocated a colour (like the residential neighbourhoods) but is not a residential neighbourhood itself. The table, and the accompanying image, only show the 13 residential neighbourhoods. It's just an anomaly, really (I suppose the council thought it appropriate to distinguish the industrial area using the same method it used for the residential areas - i.e. the coloured bands on road name signs.)
I have moved the demographics and other sections as requested.

I'll make the map work a priority now. Thanks, Hassocks5489 12:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New version of the map has now been uploaded and linked. Hassocks5489 12:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks good. I made a minor change in the order of subsections within the geography section, putting the neighborhoods at the end and moving the geography bit to the front, since it serves as a better intro to that section. I also shortened the title of the section and added a climate subsection to differentiate the climate information.

The article now meets the GA criteria, and will be listed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 19:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbourhood Image

Not directly related to this page - but why cant the neighbourhood articles use the neighbourhood image - at the moment they use one of the maps that show the uk - which just shows the neighbourhood is somewhere in south east england and not the relationships within Crawley. MilborneOne 12:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! I haven't got round to tidying up the individual neighbourhood articles yet, but I agree that the neighbourhood map (especially in its new form with the colour scheme) would be more useful. I'll try to get a chance to do this today. Hassocks5489 12:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nip and tuck

Hello. Just a note that I've given this (magnificant!) article a slight nip and tuck to bring it more closely inline with WP:UKCITIES and those UK geography articles that have FA (Dundee, Sheffield, Oldham, Chew Stoke, Blyth etc).

The next step is to take this to Peer review to get some manual and automatic feedback on the prose. I personally would like to see some of the material cropped to new History of Crawley and Geography of Crawley daughter articles (like say, Manchester and Sheffield - both major cities). Some of the sections are very, very lengthy, and possibly off putting for readers.

Other than that, once PR is actioned and followed up, take this to Featured Article Nomination and announce it at WP:UKGEO and WP:ENGLAND. Well done! -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help anyway I can. Drop me a line if anything is needed. Rudget.talk 18:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbourhood maps

Sorry not directly related to this article but to the Crawley neighbourhood articles. Each of the neighbourhoods has a map of the UK in their infobox which just indicated roughly in the UK where they are, would it not be better to show their relationship within Crawley using a version of the neighbourhood map on here. I suspect it is a project thing but I thought I would ask! MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metro area population

Does adding the population of SE England to the infobox really add anything of relevance to this article? It strikes me as rather misleading. Tafkam (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont think it is misleading just not that important as far as Crawley is concerned. Not sure it has any value as the south east england is not really a metropolitan area like london or manchester. And most people, even from Crawley, would not have a concept of what south east england is. The link is red so we dont really know what is meant. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest that it was deliberately misleading, but rather, for someone who doesn't know England (which must be the vast proportion of Wiki users), it might imply that the town forms part of some metropolitan area, which it clearly doesn't. Tafkam (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I was suggesting that even people from Crawley dont know what it means! MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the entry, on the premise that it serves no purpose, and given the lack of definition of the area, is not really verifiable either. Tafkam (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St John the Baptist bells

According to Dove's Guide (regarded by ringers as the standard reference on church bells), John the Baptist has 8 19th century bells, no mention is made of the 1742 bells - it's possible that they are still there, but not hung for change ringing, but in any case, the current wording seems a little mis-leading, there are more than 2 bells in the tower. David Underdown (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected with the help of this source and another which explains the situation with the 1742 bells (they were replaced in 1880 with the eight referred to here). Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, I was slightly confused since the original source appeared to have a publication date of 1940, so would have post-dated the replacement of the bells. David Underdown (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the British History site was in error (surprisingly, as it's usually reliable). The original writer in 1940 probably hadn't updated it to reflect the changes in 1880, I imagine. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final peer review thoughts

'Crawley now has 17 primary schools' senstence - does this sentence need the dashes? and should denominational be explained further? Are they all Christian schools or other religions too?

Reworded, changed order and confirmed the nature of the four denominational schools. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also can the 'now' be changed to something refering to 2008. Be careful of this type of thing throughout the article.

I've eliminated quite a few "now"s, where possible. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sort out capitalisation and a reference for the very last sentence.

Done. No ref found for Sharron Davies, so I've removed her. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

has Crawley ever appeared on film or been the setting of major TV series?

A search on IMDb turns up only very minor appearances in a couple of short documentaries which don't really have any notability. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

make sure that everything mentioned in the lead also appears in the rest of the article - distances to places for example.

Done. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the improvements. JMiall ₰ 21:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks again for your help. I will invite comments at WP:UKGEO, and then put up for WP:FA status. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colour inconsistency

Why is the neighbourhood colour scheme not the same in the table and in the map? The thoughts that ran through my head were:

A trick of the light - no, my graphics app confirms that the RGB values are different.
A gamma (in)correction problem - no, the figures are inconsistent with this view, among other evidence.
The two were done independently - no, the history shows that Hassocks5489 (talk · contribs) was responsible for both.

The biggest difference is in the colour used for Broadfield: #7DF9FF (table), #00C0C0 (map). Why the two colour schemes?

OK, so it would be easy to fix it so that they match. But before I do, I have one more question: Has anybody established that either set of colours more accurately reflects (NPI) the true street sign colours? (That said, I'm not sure that the signs in each neighbourhood all use exactly the same colour, but I'd expect that the colours currently used for new signs are exactly defined.) -- Smjg (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do a full reply later today. (Essentially, I need to correct the map. Some of the colours went funny when I saved it, if I remember correctly.) Hassocks5489 (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not quite a full reply, as I won't have access to my source until tomorrow. The source I used for the colours was a street map of Crawley which gave the neighbourhood names and colours in a key. (Despite intensive searching, I can't find anything on the council website or elsewhere on line, surprisingly.) Next, I selected the closest matching colours from the list of colours and added the hex values to the table. Then I tried the bit which I'm no good at: designing the graphic. Using MSPaint (!) probably wasn't the best idea, as when I saved it to .png format some of the colours changed rather significantly (notably the bright blue of Broadfield, as you say). In summary,

If you are able to correct/improve the map, I would be very grateful, as I have reached the limits of my graphical abilities
The correct colours to use, as far as is possible, are the ones in the table
I'll check the colour names on my map to make sure the hex values I have used are as accurate as possible
I'll continue to look for a definitive source for the colours. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For info: Smjg has today uploaded a new version with corrected colours. Hassocks5489 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very useful. --86.142.89.67 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity inconsistency

Population ethnicity is “White”, “S.Asian”, and “Chinese”, but “Black British”. Why not just “Black”?TheTruth-2009 (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can remember these terms come from the Census information and they dont have "Black" as a selection criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and especially for updating and improving the article.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crawley North East Sector (Forge Wood)

Now that the new 14th neighbourhood has been officially named and work has started, I'll start an article in a sandbox in my user space... User:Hassocks5489/Forge Wood. Additions, useful links, pointers to relevant documents etc. welcome! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and just a note to remind myself that the Crawley Borough Council logo (a tree with a coloured leaf for each neighbourhood) has gained a 14th leaf, in a reddish-purple colour. (See here; the leaf is between the orange and the blue ones on the right.) Keep an eye out for sources talking about this! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people - Ben Coleman

I found this link: http://www.friendsathletics.com/roster/12/7/2912.php TheTruth-2009 (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only people with a Wikipedia article of their own are treated as notable. You will need to write that first.--Charles (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation but no thanks to writing the Wikipedia article. My curiosity was piqued. A year ago I spotted a supposed notable person who didn’t actually exist, and I wanted to see if Ben Coleman was real. By the way, if you look at various Wikipedia lists of notable people, you will find some who don’t have Wikipedia articles on them.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Crawley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Crawley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716115654/http://www.sussex.police.uk/neighbourhood_policing/transferDistrict.aspx?district=Crawley to http://www.sussex.police.uk/neighbourhood_policing/transferDistrict.aspx?district=Crawley

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Crawley. 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/20110629215609/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/interesting/july2006/MaxTemp1907Points_jpeg.JPG to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/interesting/july2006/MaxTemp1907Points_jpeg.JPG
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/history-from-police-archives/RB1/Pt3/pt3GatwickCrash69.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/lgbce/research/lgbce-reports-1973---1992/mandatory-reviews/589-county-of-west-sussex-and-its-boundary-with-surrey.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/lgbce/research/lgbce-reports-1973---1992/mandatory-reviews/589-county-of-west-sussex-and-its-boundary-with-surrey.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gatwickaviationsociety.org.uk/YA-FAR.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crawleyobserver.co.uk/news/local/new-neighbourhood-to-be-called-forge-wood-1-5732178
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crawley.gov.uk/pw/News_and_Events/Press_Releases/PR_3557
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crawleyobserver.co.uk/news/local/company-celebrates-90-years-of-providing-insulin-to-diabetics-1-4838317
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.airmiles.co.uk/tertiary/aboutus.do
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cpships.com/contact.cfm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metrobus.co.uk/service_index.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2002/fd/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070730222303/https://tickets.hawth.co.uk/public/about_history.asp to https://tickets.hawth.co.uk/public/about_history.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crawley.gov.uk/pw/web/int175663
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929105604/http://archive.theargus.co.uk/1999/11/12/196562.html to http://archive.theargus.co.uk/1999/11/12/196562.html

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) 12:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Crawley. 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:

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) 03:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Crawley. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lauramoffattmp.co.uk/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://politics.guardian.co.uk/person/0%2C%2C-3678%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928091641/http://www.crawley.gov.uk/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&ssDocName=INT010149 to http://www.crawley.gov.uk/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&ssDocName=INT010149
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/history-from-police-archives/RB1/Pt3/pt3GatwickCrash69.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/lgbce/research/lgbce-reports-1973---1992/mandatory-reviews/589-county-of-west-sussex-and-its-boundary-with-surrey.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/lgbce/research/lgbce-reports-1973---1992/mandatory-reviews/589-county-of-west-sussex-and-its-boundary-with-surrey.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gatwickaviationsociety.org.uk/YA-FAR.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crawleyobserver.co.uk/news/local/new-neighbourhood-to-be-called-forge-wood-1-5732178
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crawley.gov.uk/pw/News_and_Events/Press_Releases/PR_3557
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crawleyobserver.co.uk/news/local/company-celebrates-90-years-of-providing-insulin-to-diabetics-1-4838317
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/emergency-services/west-sussex-fire-%26-rescue-service/08--contacts/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gatwickairport.com/portal/controller/dispatcher.jsp?CiID=0fcae327ea262010VgnVCM100000147e120a____&ChID=594e1fb079432010VgnVCM100000147e120a____&Ct=B2C_CT_GENERAL&CtID=448c6a4c7f1b0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____&ChPath=Home%5ELGW%5EAbout%20BAA%20Gatwick%5EGatwick%20lowdown%5EOur%20history
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080313062920/http://www.crawleyrfc.co.uk/ to http://www.crawleyrfc.co.uk/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crawley.gov.uk/pw/web/int175663
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119055857/http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/RO/MG8.2.pdf to http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/RO/MG8.2.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whatsonstage.com/interviews/theatre/london/E8821183298118/20%2BQuestions%2BWith%2B...%2BMatt%2BCharman.html

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) 12:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Crawley. 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:

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) 17:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crawley. 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:

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) 06:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Crawley. 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:

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) 11:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twinning

According to the Lithuanian Wikipedia (https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alytus#Miest%C5%B3_partneryst%C4%97), Crawley has been twinned with the town of Alytus since 2012. Are there any UK references for this? -- Picapica (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Picapica This link [1] suggests that it is unlikely.SovalValtos (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also nothing mentioned on the Crawley Borough Council website, and I have not seen any mention elsewhere of additional twinning relationships since the relationship with Dorsten was established. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 09:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both. There exists on the Alytus City Council site (http://www.alytus.lt/naujienos/-/asset_publisher/WItoiZf6GhA3/content/id/721434) the report of a "letter of intent / memorandum of understanding" having been signed in July 2012 by (the late) Keith Blake, Mayor of Crawley, and Danguolė Juozapavičienė, Deputy Mayor of Alytus, regarding co-operation in the fields of culture and the arts, education and health, sport and tourism, etc. etc. – though this does not seem to have been followed up by the establishment of any permanent links. I will remove the mention of formal twinning from the Latvian page. -- Picapica (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On re-examining the Latvian page, I see that the reference there is only to "partner cities", not to twinning as such, and the notes mention that the membership amounts to the signing of a memo of understanding (as mentioned above), so on second thoughts I haven't altered the page on the Latvian Wikipedia. -- Picapica (talk)

Useful sources

This would be useful to give an early 1990s perspective. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Useful for post-pandemic economic stuff Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 09:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Snow In Crawley.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The replacement of the original signal box picture by this generic one looked like vandalism, so I reverted the edit that included this problematic image. Recent Runes (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree good edit. MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crawley Borough Council

Since no article exists at Borough of Crawley as the boundaries are long-standing (apart from a few small changes, see User:Crouch, Swale/District split) and similar an article should probably exist on the council per WP:UKDISTRICTS like Eastbourne Borough Council unless an article on the district is created. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on the policy, but it looks to me like the clause "Single articles are generally created where the settlement/district matches most of the following criteria..." in WP:UKDISTRICTS would apply to Crawley. And the material that might be moved looks like only a small proportion of the existing page. Recent Runes (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure an extra article on the local government entity would add any value to the encyclopedia with the entry here for local government being all that is needed. MilborneOne (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its normal to have either an article on the district or if the district is combined with a settlement (as this one is) to have an article on the district council. In some cases like Ashford, Kent/Borough of Ashford/Ashford Borough Council, in that case the council should probably be merged back into the district as its effectively largely a duplicate but its normal and appropriate to have an article on the council in the absence of a separate article on the district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To apply the tests for having a separate district article (as opposed to district council) at WP:UKDISTRICTS (1) does contain a bit of rural land but not much (2) does not appear to contain other distinct settlements (3) ONS division is roughly the same (4) the boundaries are likely longstanding as there were only minor changes in 1974 (5) there are no parishes. Therefore it seems like the district council option is probably best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the real world the bit governed by Crawley Borough Council is considered as being Crawley so I dont see the need for a duplicated article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]