![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
It is my understanding that the royal train fleet is no longer kept at wolverton, and hasn't been since the year 2000. This article did originally state that but I see it has been replaced with a claim that the trains are actually still kept there. Is this correct? - a wolverton resident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.173.82.142 ( talk) 21:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
The Royal Train is no longer kept in the Royal Train Shed (obviously as this is now turned into residential). Alstom keep the Royal Train components in a secure building close to Blackboards. Alstom have the contract to maintain the stock. -- 194.74.0.10 ( talk) 11:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
An anon editor points out (in the article rather than here, which is why user:Francs2000 correctly removed it) that the SRA no longer exists so can't be the developer or owner. The precision of the press report must be doubtful, but hey, its the MK News we're talking about.
Is it the task of a moderator to remove a correct comment in order to revert to a very inaccurate statement without doing any checks? Simply following the link to SRA would have confirmed that they were not even in existence.
At the Network Rail property FAQ, they say that they own all land in and around the railway unless it is on the Residuary Body list — and Wolverton is not one of the two sites in Milton Keynes, "Buckinghamshire". But they may well have sold it already. So, since we can only speculate about the ownership, it is best not to say anything. It doesn't really seem credible that Network Rail would get into residential property development themselves. -- Concrete Cowboy 22:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
On the velodrome, the only way that this is going to get done is if you find a wp:reliable source that describes it and them you can add some new material to the article to summarise that source and wp:say where you got it. Don't worry about getting the formatting 'just so', one of the regulars will do that – the hard work is digging out a source. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 11:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
If somebody has the time and inclination, a section on Wolverton UDC would be good. The Vision of Britain site would provide a starting point. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 16:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convince that the section Wolverton#Modern Wolverton has merit: it is mostly trivia. Can anyone think of a convincing reason to keep it? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 01:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It appears that a strange entry has been made that suggests the canal defines the naming of the areas of Old Wolverton and Wolverton Mill. In fact Holy Trinity Church and the entire Galleon estate are Old Wolverton and are west of the canal, so I suggest this paragraph is removed as completely inaccurate. It seems to be based on inaccuracies and ambiguity on the WGTC website. In fact the WGTC website shows the Church as part of Old Woverton. [1] Furthermore, the canal runs east to west in that area, it would need to run north to south in order to bisect the area as described. 212.62.26.100 ( talk) 08:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Article appears very fragmented and broken. Very low standard of curation, not helped by possessive and over-zealous adherence to a personal interpretation of guidance principles. Too many faults to list here. Sort it out or move aside and let more capable people fix it. 82.2.89.219 ( talk) 09:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
It is my understanding that the royal train fleet is no longer kept at wolverton, and hasn't been since the year 2000. This article did originally state that but I see it has been replaced with a claim that the trains are actually still kept there. Is this correct? - a wolverton resident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.173.82.142 ( talk) 21:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
The Royal Train is no longer kept in the Royal Train Shed (obviously as this is now turned into residential). Alstom keep the Royal Train components in a secure building close to Blackboards. Alstom have the contract to maintain the stock. -- 194.74.0.10 ( talk) 11:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
An anon editor points out (in the article rather than here, which is why user:Francs2000 correctly removed it) that the SRA no longer exists so can't be the developer or owner. The precision of the press report must be doubtful, but hey, its the MK News we're talking about.
Is it the task of a moderator to remove a correct comment in order to revert to a very inaccurate statement without doing any checks? Simply following the link to SRA would have confirmed that they were not even in existence.
At the Network Rail property FAQ, they say that they own all land in and around the railway unless it is on the Residuary Body list — and Wolverton is not one of the two sites in Milton Keynes, "Buckinghamshire". But they may well have sold it already. So, since we can only speculate about the ownership, it is best not to say anything. It doesn't really seem credible that Network Rail would get into residential property development themselves. -- Concrete Cowboy 22:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
On the velodrome, the only way that this is going to get done is if you find a wp:reliable source that describes it and them you can add some new material to the article to summarise that source and wp:say where you got it. Don't worry about getting the formatting 'just so', one of the regulars will do that – the hard work is digging out a source. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 11:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
If somebody has the time and inclination, a section on Wolverton UDC would be good. The Vision of Britain site would provide a starting point. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 16:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convince that the section Wolverton#Modern Wolverton has merit: it is mostly trivia. Can anyone think of a convincing reason to keep it? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 01:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It appears that a strange entry has been made that suggests the canal defines the naming of the areas of Old Wolverton and Wolverton Mill. In fact Holy Trinity Church and the entire Galleon estate are Old Wolverton and are west of the canal, so I suggest this paragraph is removed as completely inaccurate. It seems to be based on inaccuracies and ambiguity on the WGTC website. In fact the WGTC website shows the Church as part of Old Woverton. [1] Furthermore, the canal runs east to west in that area, it would need to run north to south in order to bisect the area as described. 212.62.26.100 ( talk) 08:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Article appears very fragmented and broken. Very low standard of curation, not helped by possessive and over-zealous adherence to a personal interpretation of guidance principles. Too many faults to list here. Sort it out or move aside and let more capable people fix it. 82.2.89.219 ( talk) 09:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)