Talk:Wallingford, Oxfordshire

Opening comment

I've just removed some stuff from the article, as it was a possible copyright infringement. Parts were identical to text in "The Story of Wallingford", an article on a nice Wallingford website. Actually, parts of it seem not to be from that page. I might put some back... -- Oliver P. 10:02, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Except that the parts that appear not to be a copyright infringement don't make sense without the context of the parts which appear that they might be. Damn. I'll just leave it for now. -- Oliver P. 10:09, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Disambiguation page needed?

There are half a dozen towns called "Wallingford". Why should the one in Oxfordshire be the only one that comes up if you search "Wallingford + GO"? At the foot of the article there is a link to one of the other Wallingfords, but only because it is in a sister-city relationship with this one. I think a disambiguation page is called for, but don't yet know how to make one.--Haruo 5 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)

Possibly because this one is the earliest?

Population

The population data on this page (7000) was massively wrong - there are at least 10,000. Have updated temproarily to about 10,000 - will add a proper figure asap

Sciencebloke 09:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)This figure was taken from the 2001 census data on the National Statistics website. There are approx 5000 in Wallingford North and 5000 in Cholsey and Wallingford South - but that second figure obviously includes Cholsey (inc. Winterbrook) and Moulsford. I did look at a parish breakdown (excluding Cholsey, etc.) and that put the figure at just over 7000. I see Wikipedia has a figure of 4000 for Cholsey - I don't know where that number comes from.

I think we need to be careful about teh 2012 census, which was flawed in mmany respects. Also, the town has had a very high population growth rate since 2001 by UK standards.

Sciencebloke 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Do you have some figures for the population growth rate for Wallingford since 2001? I've no desire to underestimate the population figure, but just wanted to base it on something verifiable. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciencebloke (talk • contribs) 21:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Detwinning, notable?

The town is reportedly trying to de-twin from Luxeuil-les-Bains.[1]--T. Anthony (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. In the discussion it was made clear that there is no primary topic. Most of the support for not moving is based on the oldest and first and made no case for this being the primary use. This conclusion is supported by the access statisticts that show that this article received less then 50% of the hits when compared with only two other possible articles. If the other articles were included the percentage of reads for this article would be even lower. So with no case for this being the primary use, it needs to be moved. That beings us to the second reason to not move and that is the target name. This seems to be an ongoing issue with British place names. So whatever is choosen would likely gather objections and other naming options was not really discussed. A later discussion on the best name outside of the moving of the disambiguation article should be considered. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wallingford → Wallingford, Oxfordshire — The small town in England is not the primary topic for the term "Wallingford". A general web search shows a mix of hits from various topics including the town in Connecticut, the town in Vermont, a neighborhood in Seattle, and a bicycle company. Google News and Google Books shows a mix between various people's names and the town in Connecticut. Google Scholar shows mainly people's names. The unqualified Wallingford should be a disambiguation page since the English town is not the primary topic and so should not be at the base name when there are other topics known as Wallingford that are at least as significant as the English town. --Polaron | Talk 16:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wallingford (disambiguation) → Wallingford

• Oppose: The Oxfordshire Wallingford was the first one to exist and should be the primary topic. There are plenty of other examples like this.

The first one is not necessarily the most common meaning. In this case, there isn't a primary topic as defined by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. See for example, Syracuse. There are also plenty of examples like this. --Polaron | Talk 18:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Yes, the Oxfordshire location came first, but that's just one small aspect of notability. See Boston and Boston, Lincolnshire where the original location isn't as noteworthy as its namesake. In this case, there is no one primary topic, so "Wallingford" should be the dab page. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support — No primary topic here. --Una Smith (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. There's no obvious primary topic, and "the first one to exist" isn't a reliable guideline - see Boston, Washington, etc. Tevildo (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. We can argue all night about which Wallingford (if any) is the primary topic but we can't dispute that the Oxon Wallingford grabbed the page name first (I'm sure that there was a guideline somewhere that said effectively first-come first-served) and I'm unconvinced by the arguments to move. To be honest it seems to me to be a move just for the sake of moving. The DAB link at the top of the page serves its purpose well enough doesn't it? Nancy ^talk 16:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is no such a "first come, first served" rule for article names. With the exception of being the primary topic for a name, if something is ambiguous, we use a disambiguated title. I think it's pretty clear that there is currently no overwhelming single meaning (i.e. there is no primary topic) for "Wallingford". --Polaron | Talk 17:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - There's no "first come, first served" rule as far as I know, which leaves us with the task of finding the most important or "primary topic." History and population are probably the best way to determine PT here (though I know of no fixed rule). Oxfordshire certainly has a major claim from the historical point of view - Saxon times vs. the 1600's for Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Population however is reversed: 44,000 for Connecticut, 14,000 for Pennsylvania, and less than 10,000 for Oxfordshire. I don't think Vermont counts because it's so small (2000), or Iowa (200) either, and the Seattle neighborhood because it's part of Seattle. But they do matter some because they cause some ambiguity. In short, no town is unambiguously "Wallingford" so it should go first to a disambiguation page. Smallbones (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: The other Wallingfords all appear to be named after the Oxfordshire Wallingford. From an encyclopaedic point of view, Wallingford in Oxfordshire's historical significance is vastly out of proportion to its current population, and some flavour of this is given by the number of wiki pages that link to the Wallingford page on the English town (this appears to be more than for any other usages). The disambiguation link immediately under the title of the Wallingford page deals effectively with any confusion.Sciencebloke (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, historical significance is not the primary basis for article naming but current usage is. See for example, Syracuse. Anyway, your are correct that the English town article has more internal links to it, 433 vs. 269 for the next one (the Connecticut town). In terms of page views, however, the two are roughly the same (about 2000 page views each in September). --Polaron | Talk 15:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The number of incoming links to Wallingford (ambiguous page name) and other articles with unambiguous page names should not be compared. The point of moving the dab page to the ambiguous page name is so that an article does not accumulate incoming links that actually should go to other articles. A dab page at the ambiguous base name will still accumulate incoming links, but because they won't be mixed with valid incoming links they are far easier to find and fix. --Una Smith (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the number of page views is a very good indicator at all. Has it ever been used to determine "the Primary Topic" or to determine anything at all on Wikipedia? The problem is that quirks like the above, misspellings, temporary popularity or items in the news, would all effect this number, while we're probably aiming at something different - what in the long term most people would consider the primary topic. Referring to page views could be an interesting addition to policy, but I don't think we're there yet, and would caution on its use. Smallbones (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the number of incoming links - looking at those coming to Wallingford, these appear to be almost entirely (perhaps with the exception of this talk page) correct and valid links to the English town and not confused (or invalid) incoming links. So it seems there is a case for arguing that they are (in the absence of other conclusive methodology) a relevant proxy or indicator of encylopaedic significance, given internal linkage is a key concept in Wikipedia?Sciencebloke (talk) 20

04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That argument assumes no one has spent any effort fixing incoming links that intend other articles. --Una Smith (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I accept that neither the oldest nor the biggest of several towns sharing the same name has an automatic prior claim on the name. However:

1. The "otheruses" template at the head of the Wallingford article provides a perfectly good link to the much younger settlements that are named either after the original Wallingford or after persons whose surname came from it.

2. The English Wallingford is of great historic significance, having been a Saxon royal burgh and the site of a Royal mint, and having a strategically important Norman castle that was the seat of powerful Norman lords with significant landholdings throughout the region: see Thomas Chaucer, Miles Crispin, William de la Pole, 1st Duke of Suffolk, John de la Pole, 2nd Duke of Suffolk, Alkerton, Oxfordshire, Aston Rowant, Cassington, Chesterton, Oxfordshire, Harpsden, Newton Purcell and Pyrton.

3. Referring to the town as "Wallingford, Oxfordshire" may be debatable. Wallingford was part of Berkshire for nearly 1,000 years. It was transferred to Oxfordshire in 1974, only 35 years ago. Berkshire communities that were transferred to Oxfordshire at that time remain culturally ambivalent in their identity. Local organisations including the North Berks Football League, North Berks Motorcycle Club and the Oxford Diocesan Guild of Church Bell Ringers Old North Berks Branch all still refer to themselves as "North Berkshire" or "Old North Berkshire".

4. Since the Local Government Commission for England (1992) there has been a succession of local boundary changes as various English counties and districts have been re-arranged to form unitary authorities. There is no guarantee that Oxfordshire will continue to exist, that Wallingford will remain part of it or that the UK Parliament might not try to change local authority structures yet again.

5. Sometimes there are good reasons to move some Wikipedia articles, but I suggest that generally we are better occupied adding knowledge to Wikipedia than moving existing material around. Wallingford isn't broke, so please let's not expend effort "fixing" it. Motacilla (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re #3 and 4, the specific target name would depend on the naming convention in current use. Whether that name is wrong or not should be a matter to be discussed at WP:NCGN. If counties are really unstable in the UK, maybe the UK editors should come up with a different naming convention. However, the proposed target name is consistent with the Wikipedia UK place naming convention as currently written. --Polaron | Talk 01:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic

Various metrics are used to decide if there is a primary topic. These include number of Google Book and Google Scholar hits, numbers of incoming links, and page view statistics. Here are page view statistics:

• Wallingford has been viewed 17266 times in 2009.[2]
• Wallingford,_Connecticut has been viewed 17000 times in 2009.[3]
• Wallingford_(disambiguation) has been viewed 1232 times in 2009.[4]

The disambiguation pages gets a rather high number of page views, compared to the ambiguous base name page, and that page does not get a majority of page views. --Una Smith (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wallingford in Recent Centuries

There is too much emphasis on Wallingford Castle in this article. Later history is provided, but the narrative keeps going back to the castle. Perhaps greater reference to the area surrounding Wallingford might be in order. --Oldontarian (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Parking spaces

Surely, in an encyclopedic article, there need not be any reference to the number of parking spaces in different locations in the town.--Brenont (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed Brenont. I will remove the unsourced section. Location is for a Geography section. WP:Settlement applies.SovalValtos (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

External links

User:Jhv.wilder in the summary for this edit [5] claims that the external links I had removed had been "added recently by a senior editor". Possibly they intended to refer to User: Diannaa. One EL looks to have been added in 2009 [6]. When they were added and who added them does not seem to be relevant to their continued inclusion if their presence is not justified by Wikipedia:External links. Please could User:Jhv.wilder now remove the links in question?SovalValtos (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi SovalValtos, I have apologise, I have checked and I have confused the fact that Diannaa was the previous editor to you but the edit was not responsible for the addition of the content you removed. That was as you suggest part of an old edit which I have mistaken for some of Daiannaa's involved with copyright/citation issues within the article. I will revert to include your alterations.

Jhv.wilder (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User:Jhv.wilder for doing that. May I suggest that you slow down a bit on editing the Wallingford article to give yourself time to follow up some of the links and suggestions made on your talk page? Even if you have no immediate questions to ask yourself, following other editors' questions and the replies given at the Teahouse can be a great help for a new editor. We all make mistakes in spelling and grammar but conscientious use of the 'Show preview' facility can reduce them. I welcome corrections of my errors. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User:SovalValtos I have taken what you have said on board and have slowed down on the additions. I must also say thank you for the corrections you have taken the time to make.

Can I ask though I have observed that a group is now editing and theat there is a trend of delection emerging. One person deletes content then another says the heading is no longer relevant and before you know where you are the artical is bare and barron. The reason for the sections was that I was hoping for others to add and not subtract content. How have you othercome this with your previous involvements? Jhv.wilder (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Jhv.wilder I hope all of us aim to build not just good articles but a good encyclopaedia. Part of the process of adding material is deciding which article is the best home for an addition and when in editing a particular article where a wikilink to another article would be better than duplicating material.

Adding sourced material first, and then providing more headings when the volume of sourced content justifies it, is better than having a section with one sentence of unsourced content. The talk page can be used for suggesting areas where the article could be expanded if sourced material is not to hand. Over large sections can ultimately be spun-off into separate articles. For our example (FOO) the History section might spawn an article 'History of Wallingford'.

Reading the guidance given in WP:Settlement and having a copy open in another tab whilst editing can be helpful. I use it as a guide to the preferred section titles. The lead/lede is often the last section to write when an article is in rapid flux as its content is dependent on what follows.

WP:IMAGEPOL descrbes when to add images for illustration of text and when NOT to add them.

Building an article on sure foundations with on-topic additions cemented in place with careful sourcing in a structure of reliable form should prevent demolition. I look forward to seeing your next contibution. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Solvatos gives very good advice in a friendly and constructive way. The article currently is over long and full of bloat, the history section needs to be consolidated into a few sections, the photos which have marginal relevance to Wallingford removed and the use of main article Wallingford Castle to remove most about it. I see you have reverted both Solvatos and myself when we have attempted to improve the article by removing pictures with the comment "I don't agree" - this seems like WP:OWNERSHIP Lyndaship (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Could I just add my support to the comments above from Solvatos and Lyndaship. I am concerned that Jhv.wilder, although a new contributor, is reverting the removal of excess pictures by stating "I don't agree", this is not the way Wikipedia operates and looks like WP:OWNERSHIP, the discussion should have been on the article Talk page - not by reverting - see WP:BRD. The article is way overlong and full of bloat - reading in numerous places like a travel guide, something that Wikipedia is not. I regret that my time at the moment is very limited, but the article needs radical editing, both in terms of size and the numbers of typos therein. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we all need to take a step back here, fundamentally I view the addition of images in as article as of merit due to the connection they establish with the reader. therefor deleting them all with the comment of irrelivant bloat is something I disagree with, perhaps it would be better to as discussed above discuss it here but before not after deletion.

I think it is important to remember that this page has languished unedited and devoid of content for a long time. I have taken on a task of improving it and placed alot of time into this task. I never thought it would be perfect and have I have thanked all for their contributions and as a new user have taken comments on board regarding refferencing, cutting down overlinking and slowing down my new additions. I view this as being the purpose of wikipedia, users colaborating together to improve an article for the reader. I never said my content was perfect but David you speak of your concern and the need for and radical editing, it sounds as if I have personally offended you by becoming involved and if I have I appologise. But who have I harmed by doing what I have done? No one had any interest in this article before I started. I look forward to working with you all on this moving forwards Jhv.wilder (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Jhv.wilder your opinion as to the merit of the images you have added is noted. The Wikipedia way of making bold edits, and people then reverting them is described in WP:BRD; WP:CONS further describes gaining consensus. Bold edits have been made adding images, they were reverted but instead of then discussing the merits of their inclusion on talk you have replaced them. It would help if you could now remove your replacements and start a new thread on talk to attempt to gain consensus for their inclusion. They need to be removed, not left in place, as there is no consensus for their inclusion.

You say "this page has languished unedited and devoid of content for a long time" and “No one had any interest in this article before I started”. I have counted several hundred edits made in adding content and building it to the state it was in before you started to try to improve it. Improving an article to good article status can take time but it would be great if you could continue to carry on the good work of our predecessors.

One quirk of talk pages is that when starting a new paragraph one needs to add the same initial number of colons to maintain uniform indentation. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi SovalValtos thank you I will bear that in mind with regards the paragraphs, thank you for the tip! I will start a conversation with regards images and their inclusion in the article and I think that would for a positive way of agreeing to changes, obviously if you spend alot of time creating something it is disheartening to have it culled as irrelevant although I do agree that my writing could be more concise. I appreciate the sentiment but my comment regarding activity on the article is fair, the last two edits in June were minor and before that the last edit was 2017. If you look back not alot has changed in terms of real content addition for a long time. That is not to say that there was nothing to build on but if you view the page then and now I think we are alot futher forward than we were. Kind Regards Jhv.wilder (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussions regarding inclusion of Pictures in article

I beleive that the inclusion of the Pictures with the aritcle benefits the reader in terms of breaking up content and making the page easier to read. This is particularly true with the History page. I however understant that my view is not consistant with everyones. Does anyone have any thoughts on specific images that would be considered bloat and that do not improve the page? Regards Jhv.wilder (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Jhv.wilder Thank you for continuing the discussion on images in a new section. However you have not reverted your replacement of images as asked, so they will be removed shortly. It is up to you to convince others that they should be included with arguments based on policy and compliance with guidelines rather than simply saying you like them. WP:IMAGEPOL, as advised to you previously, is central here. The images removed by User:Lyndaship that you replaced in this edit [7] with the edit summary "I disagree, the use of images makes the content accessable" are just some that are some specific images that are likely to be removed. I am sorry if you are disheartened by having edits reverted, but it is something that can happen to all of us and should happen less often as policies and guidelines become more familiar. Editing is not always easy. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hydraulics Research Station

In about 1959 I was one of six secondary school students who were taken to the Hydraulics Research Station in Wallingford as a prize for writing a good essay in a Christmas Lecture from the Institution of Civil Engineers.

Shouldn't it be included part of contemporary history? And also addition about Howbery Park?

46.69.62.55 (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Etymology section

Eilert Ekwall has been misquoted. He says on p 493 of the Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place Names: ‘the ford of Wealh’s people’. No mention of Walhaz or Welsh as your editor has quoted. Please correct this, it grossly misrepresents an entirely clear quote from an academic. 92.233.44.209 (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)