Jump to content

Talk:Horley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reigate Hundred

[edit]

I'm a little bit worried by the addition of "The village lay within the Reigate hundred, an Anglo-Saxon administrative division." as it appears to contradict the later "No mention is made of Horley in the Domesday Book and it is thought to have been included in the northern manor returns". I've tagged it for now in the hope that someone can clarify this, but may to make a manual edit if no-one can help in the next few days. Many thanks to anyone who can help. 193.128.2.2 11:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put some references in which show where the details come from. The fact that it is not mentioned in the Domesday book does not actually mean it is not there. Having recently gone through all the Surrey details of the village in the Domesday book there are errors. Additionally it may quite well have been included with another hundred ie Tandridge hundred if you look at the British History online reference - this makes is even more contradictory. I've left the contradict note and will investigate further. SuzanneKn 17:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I didn't want to arbitarily take out your addition and also take out the reference to the Domesday Book. (I’m well aware of people being in Horley long before that was compiled). Good luck with anything you can dig up. 193.128.2.2 08:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After a week of the 'contradict' tag I've taken out Suzanne's reference to the "Reigate Hundred" and the original Domesday Book assertion - simply on the grounds that the tag made the page looked ugly. If anyone has any further insight or can clarify please add. Is it worth leaving the Reigate Hundred info in and the the Domesday Book reference out? Anyone? 193.128.2.2 10:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matbro works

[edit]

I am trying to develop the Matbro article. I hope there may be people in Horley with photographs and information on the works and its owners and product range.

Wates development in the 1980's Does anyone have any pictures of the Wates estate being built from 1982 up to the mid 1990's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.23.66 (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the line the adequate 'spreading of water sources is debatable re: the new development'

[edit]

I have removed this. If a reference is to be made to polemic issues please refer to WP:NOT for what wikipedia is not, and by all means do make it on a more useful article such as the various wound-up reservoirs in the south-east. Adam37 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's Only "Under The Arches" Theatre

[edit]

OK, perhaps I did misunderstand. But in that case perhaps it can be explained to me, and clarified in the text. There are many theatres located in railway arches in Britain, just a few of them:

So what does "Britain's only "under the arches" theatre" mean? Bagunceiro (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either of the latter 2 listings would be in the same vein. The Charing Cross listing says that a railway arch 'is still visible' and The Arches is below the station. I think the Union Theatre is not a Fulltime theatre. WaterlooEast, OTOH, is relatively new and may wel have disrupted Archway's claim to fame. I note that the claim no longer appears on the Archway site. So maybe they have stopped using it. Head-it-behind (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that Charing Cross theatre is in the railway arches (always has been although the theatre used to be the Players), and I don't understand the difference you suggest with Glasgow - it's still under railway arches. Nevertheless, I think you accept that it is an invalid claim for Horley (?) so I shall remove it from this article. Bagunceiro (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept that's it's an invalid claim. I think the cliam may well be out of date. But at least there is a source for it. I don't accept that Charing Cross is under the arches in the same sense as the archway. I think Charing Cross and Glasgow are pretty much the same. as I said originally I don't think you understand the claim being made wrt The Archway. But it's not worth fighting over. Head-it-behind (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,well. If you can explain whatever this special way that Horley is "under the arches" is, and modify the claim to this then that's a different matter. But as it stood the claim is clearly invalid - there are lots of theatres under railway arches, and have been for many years. Bagunceiro (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point - Is it really a railway arch when it carries a road over the top, not a railway. I would have though a railway arch carried a railway over the top. MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the special claim to fame? I really would like to understand what the claim actually is. Bagunceiro (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. As I said, it's not worth arguing over. Suffice to say there is a reference to support the claim, albeit dated now, and the claim is no longer made on the Archway website. I think it's probably moot now. Head-it-behind (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a copy of a 2005 Archway Newsletter which says "... We are currently the only active Amateur Theatre Company situated under railway arches in the UK! ...". So that seems to be the nature of the claim. I think "Amateur Theatre Company" is the key phrase. Whether the claim is still true, or whether it's worth noting is another matter. Head-it-behind (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section order

[edit]

Are we all agreed that the section order set out in WP:UKCITIES is that primary guideline in this area? Only user:Davey2010 seems to believe otherwise by reverting 9 of my edits last eve and then restored a bunch of them manually. So we agreed that WP:UKCITIES applies! yes? Atlas-maker (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just bumping this. I assume a lack of commentary signifies no objections to sorting in the correct order, I.e.
  • History
  • Government
  • Geography
  • Demography
  • Economy
  • Culture and community
  • Landmarks
  • Transport
  • Education
  • Religious sites
  • Sport
  • Notable people
  • See also
  • References
  • External links

as per WP:UKCITIES Atlas-maker (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, Seems you was indeed correct so apologies for reverting you!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Location of {{Geographic location}} template

[edit]

After a few flouncy reverts last evening, that did none of the contributors (myself included) any favours, can we agree that the {{Geographic location}} template is best placed in the geography section rather than leave a hole in the Wikiwalk navigation across southern England? Atlas-maker (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is Wikiwalk navigation? There is no requirement to have the template at all. Per WP:PROSE a prose description is preferred.--Charles (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree these templates clutter up articles and as far as I can see add no value, if you want to know where it is the standard co-ord link does a far better job. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows what "Wikiwalk" is but anyway I have to agree with above, It just clutters the articles up, Prosing seems an excellent idea!. Davey2010T 16:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. There is a discussion on the use of this template at WP UK geography--Charles (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horley. 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) 01:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horley. 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) 19:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Horley. 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) 09:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Horley&oldid=1202796045"