Talk:Guildford/Archive 1

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

Initial text

Can anyone from Guildford back me up in saying there is a bearded lady of guildford to allow me to proceed in putting it back in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashl (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 April 2005 (UTC)

I'm from Guildford, and have never heard of a bearded lady there !

I'd be quite happy also if anyone would second the addition of a link to an "alternative" perspective on this charming surrey commuter-town, such as this one : http://www.chavtowns.co.uk/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=700

-- Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.43.195.14 (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2005 (UTC)

Note: I've added only the first two comments about this subject to the archive. The entire conversation was removed in this edit to the main talk page in December 2005. Graham87 02:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Secret Caves Under Guildford

Described in "The Guildford Caverns"(1930) by Dr. G. C. Wilkinson.

Also mentioned in Manning and Bray's "History of Surrey". Put something in Wikipedia, maybe? 95.149.54.90 (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


Picture

File:Guildford High Street.jpg
Iconic view of the High Street

Does anyone have a prettier picture to replace the one of the cathedral at the top? That's such a drab view, wouldnt the town be better represented by a picture of, say, the high street? That would show the side of Guildford likely to be seen by most visitors, shows some of the beautiful architecture and better represents the feel of the place. Rather than boring mid-20C housing development.

The iconic picture of Guildford is the view looking down the high street with the clock in the foreground - ive always rather liked it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.9.33 (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, that would be a much better depiction of the town. If there are no objections I will make the changes in due course. Benstitch (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that a photo of an extant settlement is far more appropriate than a painting. If you had a photo of that view than that would be suitable. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes indeed, I note that a photo of the guildhall is now in use and agree that it is a good substitution until a better view of the high-street, as described above and as illustrated in the painting, is either provided or taken. Benstitch (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I have only just spotted that the picture has been changed, still of the Guildhall, but it has gone from one with a lovely blue sky to a dull grey one. Yes, the blue one is not perfect, it's slightly blurry, but it is much prettier than the latter. I am going to change it back. Surely someone has taken a better one recently with all this lovely weather we've been having? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IADavidson (talk • contribs) 17:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

History

The current history section is a messy and disjointed collection of commentaries on events in guildford's past. It needs better organisation, breaking down into subsections and some better naration. Any contributions would be welcome —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjmtlewy (talk • contribs) 22:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

County Town

Isn't there somne doubt whether Guildford is the county town of Surrey? The county council is actually situated in Kingston. If there isn't a source for this should we not clarify this?

--"Henry III confirmed Guildford's status as the county town of Surrey in 1257" from the Guildford site: http://www.guildford.gov.uk/GuildfordWeb/Leisure/Guildford+Museum/GuildfordSites/HistoryNotes/Medieval+Guildford.htm

The Surrey County Council Website states "Guildford is Surrey’s County Town, in all but name." Chris Bradshaw 12:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 20 days later, page changed to include these references. Chris Bradshaw 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as this was changed back today, I went back to the County Councils website to have another look into this. The Council itself doesn't seem exactly sure whether Guildford is the County Town or not.
Guildford IS NOT the county town
  1. "Surrey County Council Website:Highways in Guildford". Retrieved 2007-03-27. Guildford is Surrey's County Town, in all but name.
Guildford IS the county town
  1. "Surrey County Council Website: Discover Guildford". Retrieved 2007-03-27. as Surrey's county town, Guildford offers everything you'd expect from a city
  2. "Surrey County Council Website:the SPATIAL strategy" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-03-27. Guildford is an historic market town. Its emergence as the 'county' town reflected this historic role and its position on the A3.
  3. "Surrey County Council Website: Minutes of Executive Meeting" (PDF). 2001-11-03. Retrieved 2007-03-27. When I drive into Guildford I admire the view of Guildford Cathedral the symbol of our County town.
  4. "Surrey County Council Website: Summary of Representations and the County Council's Response" (PDF). 2004-10. Retrieved 2007-03-27. Seek clarification of impact of new County Hall on Guildford's role as County Town {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. "Surrey County Council Website:Chapter 2: The Location of Development" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-03-27. Guildford is the county town
  6. "Surrey County Council Website: Minerals and Waste Application GU00/1421" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-03-27. Proposals would propose a threat to Guildford's economy as future commercial investment would be deterred; would adversely affect existing businesses, residential property; strategic role as an important county town and .....
So the consensus (at least within the County Council, who you'd expect to know where their County Town is) seems to be that Guildford IS the county town (unlike my previous thinking). They don't seem that sure however, because one page actually says there isn't a county town at all!
  1. "Surrey County Council Website". Retrieved 2007-03-27. There is no official county town
Chris B 12:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

All of the above is but a single source. It must be considered an unreliable source because the County Council doesn't even seem to know whether Guildford is a town or a city. The county town is generally defined as the location of the administrative headquarters of the county. Surrey County Council's headquarters are located in Kingston-upon-Thames, the only issue being that this town is no longer located within the borders of Surrey. Surrey County Council has no offices or presence in Guildford whatsoever. Whitaker's Almanack gives the county town of Surrey as Kingston-upon-Thames (and is generally regarded as the authority on the subject). Any other reliable references appear to be non existent. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, Kingston upon Thames is the county town of Surrey! http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/surrey?searchDictCode=all#Surrey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.68.64 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "The administrative county of Surrey occupies a considerably smaller area than the historic county. The northeastern part of the historic county now lies within Greater London, forming all or most of the boroughs of Croydon, Kingston upon Thames, Lambeth, Merton, Richmond upon Thames, Southwark, Sutton, and Wandsworth." Therefore Kingston, although the administrative centre (the council offices having been moved there in 1893), cannot be the county town because it is actually in Greater London, not in Surrey.92.21.234.234 (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That's just your interpretation - there are no actual rules about what a county town is and where it should be located. There is no definition in law, etc. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone today is restoring the County Town claim using an archived version of this reference. There is no evidence to support this claim. The claim on the Guildford Museum website was removed by the current curator almost the day he was appointed. It was a claim made by the previous curator who, for some reason, is determined to get Guildford recognised as the County Town. As stated, here is in fact no evidence to back the claim up. There is no evidence that Guildford is or ever has been the County Town of Surrey. Surrey County Council, who you might expect to know, do not seem sure that there is a County Town or even where it is. If anyone wishes to restore the claim that Guildford is the County Town, then (per WP:BURDEN), the onus is them to produce a reliable reference from an authoritative source. -Elektrik Fanne (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

How about this one? A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 3. Originally published by Victoria County History, London, 1911. Guildford is the old county town of Surrey, 30 miles from London, lying on the banks of the Wey, where the river breaks through the line of chalk hills. By Statute 11 Henry VII, cap. 4, Guildford is named as one of the county towns where standard measures are to be kept.
There are also plenty of recent quotes which show that people _believe_ it is/was the county town.
--Cavrdg (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
My problem here is: where did british-history.ac.uk get there information from? The page is not written in 1911 style, so that means that it has been copy-edited (the footer suggests an original write and four rewrites - not a characteristic of a direct copy). There is always a problem when old material is rewritten, it is never clear what was in the original and what got added (or deleted) along the way (look at the bible - the current version is very different from the original texts). It is notable that the piece is littered with numbered references, but nothing for the County Town and Henry VII claim is so referenced. It is quite possible (and indeed very likely) that material has been incorporated from Guildford's official historian when the material was rewritten. That was, until relatively recently, the curator of Guildford Museum - the very person trying to claim that Guildford is the County Town and has been since 1257. The current curator (and official historian) refutes the claim.
The other problem is that opinions seem to vary considerably as to what a county town actually is. What exactly does this "Statute 11 Henry VII, cap. 4" say? A big problem here is that this says Henry VII conferred the status, but the historian claimed that it was Henry III in 1257 citing a different document[1] - that's one very wide credibility gap. The current curator cannot find a copy from either king and the previous one is reticent to say if he has seen any copy or not (which for a historian probably means that he hasn't). Whichever King it was, does this document specifically say that Guildford is the County Town or does it just say that it is a town where standard measures are kept, and someone has interpreted it such that a place is a County Town? Some authorities claim that a County Town is a town that has (the old equivalent of) the county's Crown Court (assizes?) - note that Henry III's alleged proclamation was for, "the ancient county court in Guildford marking ... [it] ... as the county town of Surrey" . Guildford has always had one of those, but then so has Kingston (and many other towns originally in Surrey). Others claim that it is the seat of the County Council but Surrey County Council has no administrative presence in Guildford (County Hall is in Kingston upon Thames).
There are many opinions as to whether Guildford is the County Town, but for every one that says it is, there is one that says Kingston upon Thames is, or that it is undecided. However, interestingly, none of the opinions supporting Guildford predate when Kingston became part of Greater London.
This is a problem that I would like to resolve as I live in Guildford (and some might say that I have a vested interest in it being the County Town), but without solid hard irrefutable evidence that it is or was that can be verified it is not a claim that can be supported.
However, I do thank you for your interest. Please do get back here if you find anything more concrete. -Elektrik Fanne (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
There's a copy of a book referring to the Henry VII Act on Google Books. Collection of Statutes Connected with the General Administration of the Law: Arranged According to the Order of Subjects, with Notes, Volume 8 The relevant bit is on page 344.
The Names of Towns limited for the safe Custody of Weights and Measures according to the King's Standard for the Shires following, as particularly appeareth.
Westmorl. The Town of Appleby
..
Surr. The Town of Guilford.
--Cavrdg (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
That ref doesn't actually state that the settlements listed are "county towns"s. I note that Bury St Edmunds is listed as the relevant town for Suffolk, but as far as I am aware has never been county town (though it was of West Suffolk, created in the 19th century). Perhaps the most useful thing to say in the article is that Guildford has been described as (and is often considered as?) the county town of Surrey, but sources do not agree as to whether it has ever formally held such a title. Would that be both neutral and accurate? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
There is enough controversy and material to make it a section in the article in its own right. I might have a stab later on if no one beats me to it. -Elektrik Fanne (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
OK: now added (Guildford#County town). Improve as required. -Elektrik Fanne (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The proclamation of a new monarch is established forever as a function of the ancient county court in Guildford by a grant of Henry III in 1257, marking Guildford’s status as county town of Surrey.

Spectrum

Is the Spectrum Leisure Centre the same place as the "Spectrum" that houses the Guildford Flames? --Smack (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is, The Spectrum Leisure Centre is the full name but it is mostly known as "The Spectrum" or "Spectrum" (by locals at least). KingGorack 22:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate 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.

The result of the debate was not to move this article --Lox (t,c) 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Copied from WP:RM:

Guildford (disambiguation) → Guildford - I'm trying to turn a primary-topic disambiguation into an equal disambiguation --Smack (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose the move, and the move of Guildford to Guildford, England, which I've reversed while this move is being discussed. Virtually all the links to Guildford are for the important English town, which is much more important than either of the Australian suburbs. This fits primary topic disambiguation perfectly. sjorford (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose A town of 130,000 is inherently a primary topic compared to a suburb of Sydney with estimated area of 1/8 of a square kilometre (figured out using locations and MSN MapQuest, so may be slightly off), somewhat smaller than Vatican City, or a suburb of Perth which is one of 40 suburbs in the LGA of Swan, which again is one of 30 LGAs of Perth. On average, that would mean 1,250 people in each of these suburbs, so significantly smaller than Guildford, Surrey. Sam Vimes 00:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, aside from being considerably smaller, the other Guilfords undoubtedly derive their name from the original. This is very good candidate for remaining as primary topic disambiguation. older≠wiser 13:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Proteus (Talk) 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Guildford, England

The only remaining link to Guildford, England is on this page, could G,E be deleted?

--Kylet 01:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No need. If someone does a search for Guildford, England they will get to the right place. SilkTork *YES! 10:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Guildford Bearded Lady

The reference in 'Notable Residents' to the Guildford Bearded Lady(above) should not have been removed. Every resident in Guildford knows the Bearded Lady and there are now many sites created about her. Google Search: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=guildford+bearded+lady&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Myspace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=84612360

Unfortunately all those links fail the WP:RS criteria. Not too mention she does not appear to be notable. David D. (Talk) 19:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the person who posted above, but he/she's right; everyone in Guildford and the surrounding area knows her. She won't have an official website because she can't. Can we do some sort of poll? Will that count? Srxcef 12:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Best would be an article in the local paper. Testomony even if true is not rgarded as reliable. See WP:RS and WP:OR. By the way i was not suggesting that she sart her own web site or that such would be a good source. I was suggesting that those that are keen to see her presence on the internet should start a web site for her. David D. (Talk) 13:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
For reference: Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_18#My_article_which_was_factual_was_removed_because_x_thought_it_wasn.27t David D. (Talk) 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

She's more notable than pretty much all the so-called notable residences on that list. Everyone knows the Bearded lady.
(Unsigned comment)

Nonsense! I live in Guildford and I have never heard of the alleged "bearded lady" except on this page. If anybody can point to a proper referenceable source for the "bearded lady" then maybe there is a case for inclusion. Otherwise, this is just unencyclopedic nonsense. Furthermore, I am concerned that picking on somebody that a few people may have seen on the street and writing about their unusual appearance might even be considered harrasment. --DanielRigal 15:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, not everyone knows the bearded lady...I've lived in Guildford for nearly 20 years and have not (knowingly) seen her, (possibly because I avoid shopping in Guildford if I can help it!), although I did see someone scary in Homebase last December who might fit the description... Perhaps someone who knows one of the journos at the Surrey Ad could persuade them to run an article? (if you're really that worried!!) - but the potential harrassment is an important consideration.
Incidentally, I found this reference to the Bearded Lady Comedy Club at The Star pub. Are the two related in any way? (this could improve your case for inclusion!)
EdJogg 15:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

On Facebook.com there is an Appreciation Society for the Bearded Lady. It has 5,693 members. And there's more than one group, too.

Well, here are some pictures of the Bearded Lady for those who don't seem to venture out to town. Ever.

http://photos-889.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v45/8/112/286106332/n286106332_438889_9772.jpg http://photos.pe.facebook.com/v57/197/79/510861057/n510861057_10352_2355.jpg http://photos-789.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v45/149/19/505339196/n505339196_5789_6537.jpg http://photos-360.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v50/246/115/503796013/n503796013_3360_239.jpg http://photos-678.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v60/202/1/518102947/n518102947_17678_7222.jpg

I think with an Appreciation Society of over 5,000 she's more notable than most of the people listed. Now how it had be claimed as nonsense that she doesn't exist just because YOU haven't personally seen here out and about I don't really know...

- Can you meet the WP:RS criteria? Are there any references in the press or a book (or at this stage, even a reliable website) to the person in question. If the only links are from kids photos on facebook then no, this is just harrasment. Chris Bradshaw 09:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I used the word "nonsense" for two reasons. Firstly because people have claimed that "everbody" knows the "bearded lady" and that clearly is not true. Secondly, I think it is nonsensical for an encyclopedia (please rememeber that this is an encyclopedia!) to be filled up with references which essentially state "There is an unusual looking person in this town". There are unusual looking people everywhere. This is not remotely notable. --DanielRigal 09:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the bearded lady and am usually sceptical about such things. She was wearing a rather elegant leopard skin coat. I was delighted to hear it mentioned here because I thought I was seeing things at the time. It's certainly not harassment to talk about her, she's very much a happy novelty. Maybe if I see her again or if someone else does, they could politely ask to take a photo of her. I saw her next to the canal just below debenhams at the lock. Seeing really is believing SuzanneKn 16:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to set up a proper site about her. Nobody is harassing her but she's real.

No one doubts she real. But she is not encyclopaedic. David D. (Talk) 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Could there not even be a section under Trivia for her David?

No, there shouldn't, just because something is not notable doesn't mean it can still be squeezed in there. Anyway the trivia section should be integrated into the other text (see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles). Chriswiki 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea to talk about the bearded lady if I'm honest, as while yes everyone knows who she is it would be just like singling out a person just because they often wear an orange T-shirt or whatever. A schizophrenic woman who walks around Guildford and happens to have some facial hair is hardly encyclopaedic. Lowri (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on this matter. At present, this is not a notable person, nor should they be included in an encyclopaedia. 86.27.228.133 (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Category

Because there are quite a lot of article about Guildford related things, I created Category:Guildford and put some, but not all, of the relevant articles in the category. --Christhebull 17:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable Residents

In an effort to make the article more encyclopedic, I've taken this section and tried to create more of a prose than a list. It's not 100% successful IMO, and does read a bit like a list still, but it's a start. Hopefully the inclusion of "See also: People from Guildford" will help prevent the list from reoccuring (assuming the Consensus agrees with me on this).

I've kept pretty much everything that was in the list format before, and even added a couple of wikilinks. Oh, and the section definitely needs more references adding. Chris Bradshaw 13:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked some of the punctuation to try to tie-together related sub-clauses, and keep others apart. The section now includes a variety of sub-clause/list presentations, and you may care to tweak the wording further to remove some of the variants!! In one or two cases, extra details were required to make the presentation work properly.
I'm not sure how much further you can remove this from reading like a list, without adding padding for the sake of it. It is, after all – and always will be –  still a list, but in prose rather than bulleted. Personally I think a straight bulleted-list is easier to use to find information, but as WP prefers prose to lists, then this is as good as any.
Question: This list should have a very strong correlation to the Category. All people in the list should also be in the Category (presumably), but not necessarily vice-versa. How do you decide which belong in the article, and which just the Category?? For example, I discovered Celia Imrie (one of the few names I'd heard of   :o)   ) in the Cat, yet despite being born and trained in Guildford she is not listed as a notable resident.
EdJogg 14:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional punctuation, I must admit my head was begginning to hurt with all that moving!

In answer to the question, I agree that everyone in the article should be in the category, but not vice-versa. Deciding (and getting concensus) on who should be in the article will be hard- I guess this happens elsewhere on wikipedia quite a bit. My opinion is that for starters only referenced entries (i.e. there's a reference saying that Mr X lives in Guildford) should be in the article. Beyond that some class of "most notable" should be enforced, possibly a "top 5" or "top 10", and perhaps focusing more on people who are notable as being "from Guildford". That's just my opinion though...... Chris Bradshaw 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Could I suggest tougher qualifications, having thought about it a bit...
The Category title is Category:People from Guildford, so that will include everyone who lives or lived in Guildford, or, presumably, was born there. (The Cat introduction should state what the membership qualifications should be: ie just 'born in', or 'born in or lived/living at', or ??)
To be included in the article section, the person must have some (notable?) connection with Guildford beyond just living there. The current qualifiers would be: Yvonne Arnaud (for the theatre), Lewis Carroll (grave, sculptures, etc, but according to Lewis Carroll, the house was his sister's!!), Roger Fry (alhough his own article does not mention Guildford!) and George Abbot (obvious candidate, not yet in list!!)
Failing that, only 'very notable' people to be included. Tricky to define, of course, but ignoring contemporary entertainment/sport celebrities, the list would include: P. G. Wodehouse and Alan Turing. To define which 'celebrities' are important-enough runs into POV territory. I would include Michael Buerk and Bonnie Langford as "most people have heard of them", and Edward Kelsey for The Archers, though these are all POV and others would disagree.
Tricky!
It is interesting to note that most of the people I have highlighted are NOT yet in the Cat!
EdJogg 15:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe Davina McCall is from Guildford, or at least lived there for some time. She should be included in the list when sourced.
To move this along, I've added Bonnie Langford, Michael Buerk, Yvonne Arnaud, and Lewis Carroll to Category:People from Guildford. I didn't add P. G. Wodehouse, as the article states he was "born prematurely to Eleanor Wodehouse whilst she was visiting Guildford" which I'm not sure counts. I also missed out Roger Fry for the reasons given above by EdJogg, and similarly Edward Kelsey who's page doesn't (yet) mention Guildford. Chris Bradshaw 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

BONNIE LANGFORD HERSELF STATES SHE DOES NOT LIVE IN GUILDFORD ANY MORE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.100.11 (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Stranglers in their very embrionic days certainly resided at Jet Black's Jackpot off-licence before going off to squat in [Chiddingfold]], but was it not located on the town end of Farnham Road, ie between the railway bridge and the long-since equally demolished The Castle pub on the corner rather than anywhere that would have been demolished to make way for The Friary? I recall it is visible in the background of the photo of The Castle in The Public Houses & Breweries of Guildford book. And, in spite of his schooling, didn't Jean Jacques Burnel actually live in Godalming? (Kmitch87 14:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

I've been looking around and haven't found a reference for the Stranglers bit in the Trivia section. The mention of Burnel in the Notable Residents section has a web reference at least, but maybe the Trivia entry on the Stranglers should actually go as a source doesn't seem forthcoming? Chriswiki 14:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I included a small mention of The Meat Packers, who lived in Guildford in their youth. Sonuvafitch (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it as they aren't notable - see WP:MUSIC Dancarney (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Emergency Services

Does anyone think there is a need to retain the section titled Emergency Services in the text of the article? The information in there is little more than is given in the infobox at the top of the article. opinions??? Chriswiki 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, seems redundant to me. Unless there's anything anyone can add that wouldn't be suitable for the infobox I reckon it can go. — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 23:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Guilford/Guildford disambig merger

Please see Talk:Guilford#Merger proposal for discussion as to whether everything take is named after this town, under one spelling or the other, should be on this page. Timrollpickering 15:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Guildford

Since when has the first D in Guildford been silent? I realise that it is commonly mispronounced "Gillford", but many people who don't go in for sloppy English do pronounce that D as in "Gild-ford". I have heard it pronounced "Gilt-ford" on more than one occasion. Many people seem to pronounce Police and secretary as "Pleece" and "Secce-tree" in the same way, but that doesn't mean that they have become the correct pronunciation!

Amy (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the the first D hasn't always been in the name so there is historic precedent for not pronouncing it. And it's a very common pronunciation (especially on the news and railways), far more so that "pleece", so how is it "sloppy" to use the common pronunciation? I grew up in Surrey and I've never heard it pronounced "Gild-ford". Timrollpickering (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
As a resident of Guildford for nearly 20 years, I can state that the first 'D' is, and always has been, silent. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I replaced ɚ with ə in the pronunciation, because the contemporary local variety is non-rhotic, as is RP. Is there a reason to use some other variety? Rhyolite (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That gives us Guilfad, then. Is that what you meant? There's an "R" in the inline sound file, which is very RP. Asking for a ref. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
A source for the RP transcription of Guildford with /əd/ is the English Pronouncing Dictionary, p172 (here on Google Books). The transcription scheme in this dictionary is not the most common scheme these days though, in some respects, so I ought to give some more justification.
Most dictionaries won't have "Guildford" itself, but we can consider words wih final syllables that rhyme with the final syllable of "Guildford", e.g. "standard". Here, for example, is the transcription of "standard" with /əd/ in the Oxford Duden German Dictionary.
This page on John C. Wells's site lays out the usual symbols for phonemic transcription of RP, and uses "standard" as one of the examples for /ə/. /ɚ/ is not among the symbols, neither is it used on the RP Wikipedia page that you linked. Where it is often used is in transcription of North American varieties of English.
Rhyolite (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
/ˈgɪlfɚd/ was what I heard on the station announcements and on the train from Waterloo this afternoon! This is nothing like the English Pronouncing Dictionary (published 1917), from which user:Rhyolite quotes. This offers "china " as its example for "ə" (page xxii), giving "Guilfahd" (and not, as I had it, "Guilfad"—apologies). "Wells" is equally puzzling: how can the one glyph "ə" represent the sounds in about, common and standard? They all sound different to me. I know I'm a Moonraker, but I haven't heard anyone say "carmon" for "common" since last week's Time Team.
As I'm no expert, I was happier relying on the page to hand than either of the above: I linked to Wikipedia:IPA for English. This offers (and this is a cut-and-paste to eliminate any error on my part): "ər runner, mercer (or /ɚ/)." The /ɚ/ seems to be just an alternative glyph. This is all from the section "reduced vowels", which seems to apply. I'm strongly proposing a revert to the previous, long-standing, version which accords with the sound file, and my fieldwork (deprecated, of course) on South West Trains. The attempt to "posh it up" to "Guilfahd" vowel sound of the Edwardian era seems misplaced. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this is an issue of transcription, not pronunciation. I agree that the inline sound file is the standard RP pronunciation; I am not attempting to "posh it up" or otherwise argue for a different pronunciation. What I am claiming is that the usual transcription for that pronunciation uses /ə/, and that /ɚ/ is not normally used at all in transcription of RP.
Regarding Wells: it isn't the first syllable of "common" that has /ə/, but the second (as underlined). The first syllable is a different vowel, as you say.
In the IPA for English page that you link, notice that it says: Since this key accommodates standard American, British, and Australian pronunciations, not all of the distinctions shown here will be relevant to your dialect. /ɚ/ in "runner", "mercer" is often used in transcribing e.g. General American, but not for RP. So, more sources. Here are some modern dictionaries which give "standard" with /əd/ for RP:
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Entry and overview of the transcription scheme. (/ɚ/ is also given, marked as "US".)
Oxford Pocket Russian Dictionary (2000) p558
Collins English-Norwegian dictionary (1998) p617
Langenscheidt Standard German Dictionary (2003), p1269
Other than the Cambridge Learner's dictionary (where it is marked as "US" on each occurrence) none of these dictionaries use /ɚ/ at all. Do you know of any sources which give RP transcriptions with /ɚ/, or which describe the RP vowel system as having /ɚ/? Rhyolite (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

outdent] I'm glad we can agree on the sound file—I don't have to rely on my dodgy original research! However, the fact that the article's IPA transcription reads as "Guilfad", according to the usage here on Wikipedia, still isn't addressed. It was correct before, and the correct version needs to be restored. Why is User:Rhyolite continuing to insist that his/her change from the established version is right? Follow the link, see "Rosa " as the example for /ə/ and draw your conclusions. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you change it back, I'll leave it alone - I have no interest in an edit war. What would interest me is a more serious response to my sources - do you think that they are all transcribing "standard" in a nonstandard/unusual way, or do you disagree that the second syllables of "standard" and "Guildford" rhyme?
Yes, "Rosa" has the same vowel as "standard" in RP. I've given various sources for "standard"; For "Rosa", here is the entry for "comma" in the Cambridge Advances Learner's Dictionary, so there is one source that uses /ə/ for both. The same is true of the other dictionaries that I mentioned above - I can give page numbers if you'd like. Rhyolite (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Is my non-RP accent leading me astray? My immediate response to that is no, they don't rhyme: where's the 'r' in 'standard' gone, and the 'urd' in 'Guildford'? However, there are enough of your sources (and a couple more that I found) to make me think that it isn't as straightforward as that. The online edition of OED is in the process of changing the way it handles pronunciation and I will check this authoritative source before jumping to edit the page. Whatever the outcome, I need not use /ɚ/ as /ər/ is equivalent.
All along I have been assuming that the usage here on Wikipedia is correct, but if it is the one to be out of step, and it has to be changed, it will mean a lot of work for someone, and some humble pie here! --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't resolve this. As promised, I have done a "wildcard" search on OED to bring up all words ending in -"ord". I should have done this before, rather than resorting to the WP usage page, closer to hand. The OED doesn't have Guildford but, for example, Bradford and Hereford were there. Both unequivocally /ə/, as Rhyolite would have it. This, to me, is contrary to the Wikipedia usage, which is equally unequivocal for /ɚ/. I withdraw my suggestion to change the IPA in this article, with apologies for anything intemperate or too flippant above and thanks for other editors' patience.
I don't believe I have discovered a huge error in usage here on Wikipedia—it's probably some international variation that isn't catered for or I haven't spotted. I'm certainly not daring to raise the issue on that page, partly for fear of the possibly wide consequences if there is a mistake! --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Now, too late by some considerable margin, added a specific WP:RS pronunciation from the BBC.--Old Moonraker (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The /r/ in the IPA is wrong. It's just a schwa before the /d/. A narrow transcription may include a suppressed /d/ after the /l/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The text has been changed away from that given in the reference, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia: the BBC version allows the schwa, with or without the /r/. Trying to change it back to what the source says usually causes something of an upset, sometimes from editors outside the UK. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Top Gear

I've removed the reference to Top Gear being filmed "in" Guildford. Dunsfold Park, where the show is filmed, is 10 miles out of the town, and is no closer to Guildford than Godalming, Horsham, Haslemere and, at a push, Dorking. I know they say on the show that's where it's filmed, but they're not an encyclopaedia.

Jonobennett (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the postcode for Dunsfold Park would begin with a GU. While it is admittedly as close to Godalming, Horsham etc. it is technically in the borough of Guildford and as such might be worth mentioning. Lowri (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I retract my previous statement, since writing it I have been to Dunsfold Aerodrome for a driving lesson and can see where you are coming from. However, even though Dunsfold Aerodrome is further South than Godalming and it is in Waverley (I think?) I can also see why it would be stated as being in Guildford (i.e. the postcode is indeed a GU postcode and Guildford is the nearest major town.) I know this is unhelpful, but I'd now say Dunsfold is more "near" Guildford than "in" it. Lowri (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Dunsfold Park is near, not in, Guildford. Given that the presenters often refer to the town in the show and it has a GU postcode, I feel that rather than removing the reference from the article it should be altered, e.g. 'The BBC show Top Gear is filmed near to Guildford...'. Benstitch (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

RGS - Second Oldest School?

Why does this article claim that the RGS is the second oldest school in the UK? I'm an OG and have never heard this claim before. 10 seconds of research brings up at least a dozen older.

Sjmtlewy (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You're correct - even our own list of the oldest schools in the United Kingdom contradicts this claim. I've removed it. — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 12:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

See also

I feel it should be considered that this article might not require a "See also" section at all. Benstitch (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also_section

You are correct. All of the links in that section were already in the main body of the article. As such, I've removed it. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Canal picture

The canal picture should be turned a quarter--82.215.27.112 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fix requested at File:River Wey & Canal at Guildford.jpg, but it seems there is a bit of a queue—about ten days. (This is a damage-limitation precaution: if the bot malfunctions it won't do too much harm before it's caught!) Watch this space, and thanks! --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Fixed by human intervention. Thanks, Célestin Moreau. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Guildford Philharmonic Orchestra

In editing the paragraph on the GPO under "Culture" I have red-linked the orchestra as I think it is sufficiently encylopedic - longevity, eminence of conductors, commercial recordings and apparently the last fully municipally run/funded professional symphony orchestra in UK. But needs someone with better sources to write. Davidships (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Updated Images

Do you think that the Guildford page needs updated images. For example, the picture of RGS is extremely old but I pass by there everyday so I could upload some new images for that. Are there any other images that you think needs replacing because I am happy to go take a new one.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Guildford. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 01:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Guildford. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Rolling Stones at the Wooden Bridge in Stoughton

Noticed a reference was needed for the Rolling Stones playing the Wooden Bridge pub, will this do http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/nostalgia/non-stop-screaming-rolling-stones-10360111 its from the local Surrey paper. That article also references the book You Had To Be There: The Rolling Stones Live 1962–69 But I haven't got the book to check the reference. The newspaper article mentions the gig on March 30th 1963, but I'm sure that when I frequented the pub there was a sign which also mentioned a gig on March 9th 1963 (I remember the date cos thats my birthday). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.190.198 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Guildford. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Part of Greater London?

That seems odd to say the least, Guildford has no urban connection to Woking, there is at least 6-7 miles of countryside between the two with no continually-connected 'urban environments' and Woking itself is hardly a urban sprawl being nestled and surrounded by some of the nicest countryside in Britain. I don't think a term designed for a single set of statistics makes Guildford something it's not. There seems to be a land grab going on at the moment from London for political reasons, I vote we remove the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.152.116 (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight for the lede I think at the least, and it should be covered and referenced in the article before any mention in the lead section.Charles (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Guildford. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Guildford. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Businesses that "helped the town become a centre for video game production"

There is a list of companies that helped Guildford become a centre for video game production, which was sourced. IMHO it is not the place to add other businesses that are located in Guildford that are not sourced as helping it become such a centre. In fact there is little reason to have a list of businesses at all. Wikipedia is not a business guide.SovalValtos (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The ref for the original list is dead and googling for the impressive comparison with Tokyo only turns up wiki mirrors. Several of the businesses are flagged as having closed. If we are going to keep the mention of video game production at all, it would seem sensible to include more recent evidence. Cavrdg (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
This is exactly why I added it. Many of the developers have since closed down while others still remain relevant. Supermassive Games with its 100+ employees is a fairly new studio, founded in 2008, and has seen a good amount of recognition and success helping Guildford to remain relevant for video game production to this date. Perhaps the wording of "helped 'become' the center" is the issue here because thanks to studios like Supermassive it still has that status. Also I think that it should be mentioned, perhaps presented in a better way though, because the amount of game studios located there is way above average which speaks for the city's appeal to these types of businesses. Additionally, no offense to Hello Games, but Hello Games was founded by ex-Criterion employees in the same year as Supermassive Games and they are way smaller in size. Furthermore one might argue that they only really found mainstream recognition and success with No Man's Sky, a game that came out a year after Until Dawn which put Supermassive on the map. There doesn't seem to be any sort of reasonable explanation as to why Hello Games gets to be mentioned and Supermassive doesn't.KingSiri (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone help find the dead source to find out what it said? The citation was added with this edit [1] by an IP who was only briefly active so unlikely to help now. The subject of the article being Guildford, the inclusion of details of individual ephemeral businesses, their products, the movement of their employees and their part in history do not seem to have a place in this article. An international source mentioning the world significance of Guildford in the game business could be a different matter.SovalValtos (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Source looks like it used to be a site that ranked the top 100 game studios based on, in their own words, "a variety of key criteria including sales data, critical success and industry standing." In 2009 around May, which is what the source seems to point at, there were 3 studios listed in the top 37 that were based in Guildford. Media Molecule #18, Lionhead #22, Criterion #37. Got it via wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20090515185203/http://www.develop100.com:80/ @SovalValtos: I get what you mean when you question if these studios should even be mentioned in the article. My stance is that they definitely should. The reason for this is because if you look at the size of the city and its population of "only" around 77k, it is remarkable that there were but especially still are so many influential and award-winning studios located there (sometimes independant, sometimes part of a huge company like Sony or EA) that (help) create(d) some of the biggest games in the industry. It's also home to offices of Ubisoft and a studio of Epic Games which primarily works on the Unreal Engine, a video game engine used in hundreds of indie and AAA games including Epic Games' own Fortnite for instance. It is also remarkable that even though some studios have closed over the years new studios are still coming to Guildford highlighting that it is still an important place for the industry, like the Epic Games studio which was founded in 2014 for instance. That concentration of studios is very uncommon for such a small city and usually only something you would find in bigger cities like London, Paris, and Tokyo, or cities directly located next to bigger cities, like Santa Monica for instance. I think it is worth mentioning Guildford's strong presence in the biggest sector of todays entertainment industry, a relatively new but incredibly successful industry that has helped shape the international relevance of the city in modern times quite a bit because of the products they create. Sure, the city itself doesn't always get credit or even mentioned a lot when these games sell well or when they or the studios are in the news, but it's still a fact they they have been created there. I think only mentioning important past and present studis is enough, and I did refrain from going down into the rabbid hole that is mentioning important people like Peter Molyneux OBE, who I think needs to be mentioned in the notable residents section because he is well recognized even from outside the gaming industry as seen by his OBE title, or individual game series like Fable, Burnout or LittleBigPlanet and their influcence on the industry and their sales numbers and critical performance. Mentioning all that would be too much and not fit for the article, but if you inform yourself about it it might help to understand why these studios are so important. By just doing a quick google search I came up with a few relatively recent articles, some even describing Guildford as "the Hollywood of video games". I'll just drop the links here: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/04/guildford-uk-video-game-industry-ubisoft-little-big-planet-hollywood http://www.ncub.co.uk/success-stories/guildford-gaming-industry https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/developers-vow-make-guildford-the-11646853 This is everything I really had to say on the matter, excuse me if the reply has been somewhat excessive. KingSiri (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Most helpful KingSiri I agree the sources that you have found suggest that something could be written about the Guildford gaming industry, perhaps both on this and also a new page about just it. The ncub link is to a promotional organization [2] to be handled with care, and getsurrey is just a local press site. The national Guardian reference is good, and given the apparent international status of the Guildford industry an international reference would be better still, perhaps one from a Japanese source, as Tokyo is another centre. Can anyone find one? Would someone like to draft some text using the sources to hand?SovalValtos (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sanford Arms

There is speculation in the Etymology section that the old name of this pub may refer to the Sand Ford on the river. However the original pub-sign featured the arms of the Sanford family of Nynehead Court in Somerset, who were relatives of the owners, Hodgsons. See <çhttps://whatpub.com/pubs/SHB/509/rogues-wine-bar-guildford>. I would suggest this section is deleted. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"The" and dissolution of the monasteries

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(definite_or_indefinite_article_at_beginning_of_name) I have removed "The" as unnecessary, and "dissolution of the monasteries" should not be capitalized as it is not the proper title of anything mentioned in the section. If there is a book by that name, it should be mentioned by name, but standalone it is not the name of a time period or event.Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I refer you to the Wikipedia article: Dissolution of the Monasteries. It is the title of a specific historical event and should retain it's capitalisation. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Information needs adding to the 'Geography' section

Information needs adding to the 'Geography' section in the article as it is currently empty Xboxsponge15 (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed Xboxsponge15, some done. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure for guidance.SovalValtos (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

A3, through or round?

The A3 passes through Guildford, there is a 1934 Guildford Borough marker on the junction of Aldershot Road and Rydes Hill, north of the A3. The suburbs of Slyfield, Bellfields, Stoughton, Westborough and Park Barn are all north and west of the A3 and are part of the town of Guildford. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The Town of Guildford and the Borough of Guildford are not the same thing. Similarly, neither is the Parish of Guildford, the Postal district of Guildford or the Diocese of Guildford. The border of the Town of Guildford to the West and North actually follows the course of the Wey Navigation between the old Ferry landing stages at St Catherines and (roughly) Broadford Bridge.[1] Although the A3 between these points is technically inside the town boundary, as it is never more than 0.16 of a kilometre inside (at roughly Stoke Lock), in no way can it be described as bisecting the town.[2] Even saying that it runs 'through' the town is stretching it a bit.
The 'Borough of Guildford', on the other hand extends much further North just failing to encompass Worplesdon Station (by exactly 1 kilometre putting the Station in the Borough of Woking).[1]
The Postal district of Guildford is larger still taking in much of East Hampshire including Farnborough. As for the Parish and Diocese - best consult the church (complicated by the fact that there are two Parishes of Guildford covering different areas).
The town, for the purposes of th article, includes all the above mentioned suburbs, which are the opposite side of the A3 from the town centre. Several of those suburbs came into existance before and during the construction of the "by-pass". NB it is considered polite to sign your comments on talk pages. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
No: the town for purposes of the article is talking about the town. The lede summarises the article's discussion of the town but only mentions the Borough to state that the Town of Guildford is part of it. The article is principally about the town not the Borough though it does mention surrounding localities but as precisely that. 109.152.208.48 (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Might a cleaned version of this text help?
Guildford lies at the eastern end of the A31 and was bisected by the Portsmouth Road coaching route which ran down the high street until it was labelled A3 after the first world war and was re-routed succesively further north to the edge of the town of the town centre.
What is the definition of the town? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
There is not just 'the definition of the town' there will be several depending on point of view, time in history and purpose. Parish boundaries are used in settlement articles as are local authority boundaries and people's perceptions of built up areas which change with time etc. There is no need to seek a straight-jacket unless a specific definition is essential. Leave it to the commonsense of the reader.SovalValtos (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
This is the problem, common sense says the town of Guildford includes its suburbs, as in most other town articles, but our anonymous disputant is trying to impose his version of what he thinks the town is. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure there is a problem if we can achieve consensus for wording. I have changed my proposal above.SovalValtos (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The town boundaries are as defined on the Ordnance Survey boundaries map (you need to be a paid subscriber to access this). The town boundaries have not changed since 1919/1920 (the earliest boundary maps available). The eastern boundary is apparently missing from the current (2019) map (but present on the 1919/1920 maps). The boundary of the Borough of Guildford is also defined on this map. 109.152.208.48 (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
OS have just confirmed that there is a 'corruption of the database' for that part of the maps. [Didn't know anyone worked there on a Sunday.] 109.152.208.48 (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Further to the above, the 1920 OS data puts the eastern boundary of the town running roughly through the current Royal Grammar School (the old school being just inside it). I have been reminded that there is an old town boundary marker on the pavement next to the school's new building's wall. It is reasonable to assume that the boundary has moved as the town has expanded eastward, but the exact location is currently difficult to establish. The town remembrancer will almost certainly know and I shall ask him next time that I see him which, my diary tells me, is not until the middle of next month. 109.152.208.48 (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The problem we have is that the information you are working from is out of date by a century. Also, you are using data deriving from original research which is disallowed in Wikipedia. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Ordnance Survey boundary data is not original research, it is a citeable reliable source - and in fact the only official source beyond the Borough council (who probably provide the data to OS anyway). Only the information on the eastern boundary is out of date (or rather the current data is just missing). The northern, western (and southern) boundary data is current (as the digital maps are updated continuously). Also the town Remembrancer is an official town position so would also be a reliable source (plus he can probably point me towards other reliable and citeable sources).
But for the current discussion, only the northern boundary is pertinent which is not out of date and has been cited to the only official source. Having said that, the article could benefit from documenting the entire boundary. 86.166.102.246 (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Please could the IP editor(s) provide the OS source(s) here they would like to use for the rest of us to inspect? The source needs to be clearly stating that it refers to the town and not the borough or anything else. As there have been no objection to my proposed wording above I think it could now be safely used. I will leave it for a few days for another editor to add before doing so myself.SovalValtos (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the ordnance survey digital mapping data which is available on CD-ROM. As it is crown copyright, and subject to the UK practice of selling tax payer owned data at whatever extortionate price they can get away with charging, it costs an arm and a leg. 1:50,000 maps come on 4 CD-ROMs at £100 per disc. The 1:25,000 maps are sold on 20 discs or so at £150 per disc. Public Rights of Way are included on the base maps (as they are also on the paper maps). There is no update facility - if you want an updated map you have to buy new discs at full price.

The 1:25,000 maps have several additional overlays such as geographical and political boundaries and The National Cycle Network etc. Each of these require an unlock code at extra cost. Also, at extra cost, is the ability to download a copy of maps capable of being loaded into a compatible GPS or SatNav unit (although charged on an area basis, any download stops working after 1 year). Unless you are prepared to purchase the appropriate discs and purchase an unlock code, you cannot access the data. If you could access the data via another source, you would (or should) still be paying OS for the data as all surveyed UK mapping data is copyright Ordnance Survey.

Having said that: Ordnance Survey now have a rival in the mapping business because of the OpenStreetMap project which provides mapping data free of charge to anyone. It is not accurately surveyed but constructed through users walking (or driving) around plotting roads, paths, woods and green spaces with a standard GPS unit. Thus the maps are subject to the standard GPS positional errors though are perfectly adequate for most purposes. OpenStreetMap does not provide political and geographical boundaries because these cannot be followed with a GPS unit. 86.166.102.246 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Ordnance Survey
  2. ^ Bisect: To divide into two equal parts (or approximately equal for geographical use).

Merger proposal

It is proposed to merge the article Westborough, Surrey into the appropriate section in this article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Go for it! Fob.schools (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Done Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guildford/Archive_1&oldid=1165577255"