![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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?
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)
The town is reportedly trying to de-twin from Luxeuil-les-Bains. [1]-- T. Anthony ( talk) 08:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Jhv.wilder ( talk) 10:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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?
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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?
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)
The town is reportedly trying to de-twin from Luxeuil-les-Bains. [1]-- T. Anthony ( talk) 08:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Jhv.wilder ( talk) 10:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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?