From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famous people

James Preston was a United States statesman, who ostensibly had nothing to do with the town. I can find no record whatsoever of Ziad Soobratty in Yahoo. Have removed both names from the list. Dieter Simon 00:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Channel 4

is it worth mentioning channel 4 voted it as the nicest place to live in the UK? Adamshappy 18:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Poppies and beer bottles

Please clarify the relevance of the two images, the poppies photo and that of the beer bottles with particular reference to Epsom. Are the poppies made in Epsom? Are the beers brewed in Epsom?. If there is no particular relevance please add them to the articles where they are being discussed. Dieter Simon 00:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply

List of pubs/social clubs

Does the article really need a long list of pubs and social clubs in Epsom? Most of them aren't notable, they're just pubs.

And apparently the 7th Epsom scout group ranks higher than Epsom Playhouse in the list of local entertainments. 172.132.78.203 01:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I think a lot of that could be cut. This page is not as nice as Guildford's though it's better than Leatherhead's SuzanneKn 19:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I've made a new page List of pubs and social clubs in Epsom and put them all there. SuzanneKn 21:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

History/Town

Added info on the clock tower 91.105.143.184 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC). reply

Copied here from Wikipedia:New contributors' help page by User:Orangemike

I accessed an article on Epsom and noted factual mistakes. I merely wanted to correct them (edit?) not write a new article. I do not wish to be identified so I created an account. I will try to find the page again and edit it, but in case I cannot:

1. The article stated that parts of Epsom are in the District of Reigate and Banstead. I strongly suspect that this is not so. I believe the contributor is confusing an indeterminate area loosely referred to as Epsom Downs with Epsom Town. The downland starts at the race course and the village of Langley Vale within the borough of Epsom & Ewell, and extends, without natural borders, into countryside neighbouring Tadworth, Walton Heath, Walton-on-the-Hill, and Banstead, all of which are within the District of Reigate and Banstead.

2. The article stated something to the effect that Epsom is within the Greater London area. I know his is not true. I have lived in the Borough of Epsom & Ewell from 1947 to 1986, and from 2007 to date (2010).

During the time of the London County Council, when Epsom Kingston and Sutton were all under Surrey County Council, there was a Metropolitan Police Force covering the LCC area (save for the City of London) and surrounding areas from the Home Counties, including Epsom and Ewell. The Metropolitan Area was not a tier of local government, just a police authority larger than the LCC, in charge for example of the Carriage Office, regulating London taxicabs. It may also have been used as a convenient descriptive area for other purposes.

When local government authorities were to be reorganised, it was proposed that the Metropolitan Police area become the jurisdiction at county level of the Greater London Council, with subordinate local authorities to be known as London Boroughs. Being in the "Green Belt" (created by the Town & Country Planning Act 1947)), surrounding London's urban sprawl, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council vehemently and successfully opposed this (an expense figure of £3 million springs to mind), with the result that this borough was excluded from the new GLC when it was created in 1963, but continued both to be under Surrey County Council, and to remain in the Metropolitan Police area, paying a precept to the Metropolitan Police Authority as before. Sutton and Cheam formed the major part of the London Borough of Sutton, and Kingston and Surbiton that of the London Borough of Kingston.

Sometime between 1986 and 2007, when I lived elsewhere, this anomaly was corrected and the police authority for Epsom and Ewell is now Surrey County Council.

3. I am sure that I have given enough information to enable someone who, unlike me, knows their way around the internet, to verify my assertions.

4. I will try to find my way back to see your response in a few days.

Junipers18 ( talk) 01:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Epsom. 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) 05:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Epsom. 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) 03:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Preparing for Good Article nomination

Hi All!
I've been working on the Epsom article over the past month or so and would like to nominate it for a Good Article review in a few weeks' time. I'd be very grateful for feedback on how to improve the article further. In particular, I'd appreciate some input into refining the lead section and for any photos that might help illustrate the later sections.
Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks and best wishes Mertbiol ( talk) 16:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi Mertbiol, I’ve been going through the article and have come across an item that puzzles me. In the section referring to Emily Davison at the Derby there is a reference to a road near Tattenham Corner station being named “in Wilding’s honour”. I can’t find this road, or work out who Wilding is (or was). ~There is a Davison Close to the north-west of Epsom town centre, presumably on a new estate. Apart from that the only other thing I found was a misapprehension about Mrs Beeton’s residence in the town which I have corrected. Regards Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 11:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Solved the road problem, it’s actually Emily Davison Drive. The obscure Wilding reference is confusion with her middle name. Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 14:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks @ Murgatroyd49:.
Thank you for catching the error with Mrs Beeton. I had misunderstood one of the sources, which hinted that she had returned to live in Epsom after spending a few years in Pinner. I've rechecked everything and have read a few more sources and you are entirely correct.
I am trying to track down a source which definitively says that the road in Tattenham Corner was named after Emily Davison, but I don't think I will be able to get access to it until early next week. I agree that it needs a proper citation (I don't really like citing Google Maps or similar), so I will do my best to firm this up before submitting for WP:GAN.
Thanks again for all your help and support. Best wishes Mertbiol ( talk) 19:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Epsom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FormalDude ( talk · contribs) 22:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply

I have begun reviewing the article Epsom. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. –– FormalDude talk 22:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Lead section

Hi @ FormalDude: Thanks for picking up the review. I look forward to working with you. I see that you have already made a couple of changes to the article:

You have removed the sentence about the death of Emily Davison from the lead.
Davison's death following the 1913 Derby is one of the most important events in the history of Women's suffrage in the UK. Almost every British citizen is aware of the event and it is taught in every school. It is critical to the re-shaping of UK parliamentary democracy that takes place following the end of the First World War. Given the fundamental importance of the event in our nation's history, it must be mentioned in the lead.
You have changed "is" to "was" and "probably" to "likely" in the sentence "The town is first recorded as Ebesham in the 10th century and its name probably derives from that of a Saxon landowner."
The original version is correct in British English. (The present tense is used, because the record still exists and "probably" is preferred over "likely".)

I will therefore revert your changes. Best wishes Mertbiol ( talk) 22:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Great, thanks for the clarification Mertbiol. My review of the lead section makes me believe this article should be fast tracked to GA. I will get started on my review of the body sections. –– FormalDude talk 22:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Thank you @ FormalDude: I look forward to your comments. Best wishes Mertbiol ( talk) 22:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Toponymy section

  • Citation #3 missing author.
  • No comma needed in first sentence.
  • Oxford comma missing in second sentence.
  • Why is the name sometimes formatted in italics and sometimes in quotations? I believe it should be one or the other.

Geography section

  • Second sentence of Geology subsection missing oxford comma
  • Third sentence of Geology subsection does not need commas.
  • Final sentence of Geology subsection does not need commas.
  • Some sentences in the Geology subsection are missing citations. I assume they are already cited elsewhere and just need to be referenced.

–– FormalDude talk 23:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi @ FormalDude: Oxford commas are only used in British English if a list is unclear without them. 99% of the time they are not necessary and are therefore not used. Best wishes Mertbiol ( talk) 23:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Mertbiol: Oxford commas are commonly used in British English. Its name comes from the Oxford University Press (OUP), where for over a century it has been standard in the Oxford Style Manual. See MOS:OXFORD which states that it is common to use them when ambiguity is caused without one. There are several instances where ambiguity is caused, so the article should make consistent use of the oxford comma. –– FormalDude talk 23:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi @ FormalDude: Yes that's right. Oxford Commas are only used when ambiguity is caused without one. None of the instances that you have identified so far require an Oxford Comma. Best wishes Mertbiol ( talk) 23:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply
But they do cause ambiguity. It can be mistaken that the last two items in the lists are one item when there is no oxford comma to separate them individually. –– FormalDude talk 23:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Final review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Professionally written. Only comment is it needs to follow MOS:OXFORD.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):
    Notes and references are quite well done. Very few if any mistakes, possible future FAC.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a ( major aspects): b ( focused):
    Goes in depth where it needs to, particularly in history. Provides a world-view.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Revision history shows stability.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Makes excellent use of images.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    A very special thanks to Mertbiol for their time and effort spent bringing this article to GA! They did a great job. –– FormalDude talk 00:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks @ FormalDude: for your review. Thanks also to @ Murgatroyd49: and @ Polyamorph: for their feedback and support in preparing the article for GAN. Best wishes Mertbiol ( talk) 00:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Epsom and Ewell History Explorer

The reliability of the website eehe.org.uk has been questioned, since this is a GA and the source is used in this article, I'm notifying editors here of the discussion at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Epsom_and_Ewell_History_Explorer. Best wishes, Polyamorph ( talk) 11:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The discussion at RSN should be directed here, as it is no longer to do with RS, but a particular source for a particular article. I will respond to the question asked of me at RSN here, as well as another comment. This is plainly not UGC. They may not cite all their sources in online articles but they clearly have primary sources available at their location, which is the point of similar societies. The objection to citing the Daily Mail is first of all ridiculous, considering the example is from the first half of the 20th century (an archival example where WP's deprecation would not apply), but it also reflects a ridiculous conflation of WP's sourcing policy with the outside world. Incidentally, just because a source cites something WP or others generally consider unreliable (such as a blog or WP itself), does not make that source unreliable. Often an article might do this just to reference a quick lay summary of a topic for a popular audience. At the end of the day for this source, I would suggest that the editors involved here should forget all policy, because they are not applying it correctly, and instead they should consider only what the source has to say and whether they say it suitably for the article. SamuelRiv ( talk) 15:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Many thanks SamuelRiv. I have stepped away from that discussion for my sanity. Your calm and considerate response is much appreciated. Does what you say also apply to my use of the source at Woodcote Park. A clarifying comment there to address the user comments and draw a line under them would also be appreciated. All the best Polyamorph ( talk) 16:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
SamuelRiv, your comments "forgetting all policy" are poor and your judgement on the Mail is flawed. The EEHE website basis some of its content on sources we would consider utterly unreliable; I am not sure how you think a site that uses unreliable and deprecated sources can be a valid source, but I only deal with quality content here. I guess YMMD on what encyclopaedic content actually is. - SchroCat ( talk) 17:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
"a particular source for a particular article" is exactly what RSN is for, you gave Polyamorph bad advice and when they acted on it [1] they looked like an asshole at best and a complete vandal at worst but it was really you who had messed up. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) SamuelRiv, your comments "forgetting all policy" are poor and your judgement on the Mail is flawed in my opinion. The EEHE website basis some of its content on sources we would consider utterly unreliable; I am not sure how you think a site that uses unreliable and deprecated sources can be a valid source, but I only deal with quality content here. I guess YMMD on what encyclopaedic content actually is. Polyamorph, I am sorry you seem to have a problem with people disagreeing with you, but there we go. I will only add that the opinion of one editor (whether it be SamuelRiv, you or me) does not draw a line under anything: there are no final judges on WP of what constitutes a reliable source.- SchroCat ( talk) 17:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
SchroCat. I want to draw a line under it because everytime we enter discussion it turns out to be a complete trashcan fire. I've indicated several times I would like a more collegial and respectful discussion. Polyamorph ( talk) 17:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
We disagree about the source. That is all. I am not personalising the discussion, but I am refuting some of the arguments you have put forward because, in my opinion, they do not hold water. "Collegiate" doesn't mean we have to agree, but it does mean that it shouldn't be personalised, and my comments have been focused on the source and your arguments in favour of it. That's all.
Let the discussion at RN continue with others chipping in. SamuelRiv gave poor advice in trying to move it here - it's a discussion about a source that could affect multiple pages, so it really should be on RN - just let it continue and it will come to a natural conclusion. - SchroCat ( talk) 18:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks @ Polyamorph: for your notification. Thanks also to SamuelRiv for their very thoughtful response above. As SamuelRiv has already said, you do have to take each citation in turn rather than attempting to condemn or exonerate the EEHE as a whole. As WP:RSCONTEXT makes clear:

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."
"The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited, the context of the fact and cite in the article, incentives of the source to be reliable, the general tone of credibility of the source for the specific fact, etc."

I am very comfortable using local history museum/society websites to support simple factual statements (e.g. "Event A happened on date B"), particularly when "date B" is after 1800. I would be more wary of using them to support interpretations such as "As a result of Event X, Person Y did Z". The further back in time you go, the more cautious you need to be and I would be very reluctant to use this type of website as a source in a pre-history section (i.e. pre-1066).
The Woodcote Park article has undergone some heavy editing over the past few days, but looking at it now (around 7pm on Tuesday), there are only two EEHE pages cited. The first ([15] about the convalescent camp) is always used with one or more other sources and doesn't contradict them. The second ([26] a more general history) is used twice - the first time confirms what another reference is saying, the second states that the gardens were dug for allotments in the war - hardly controversial! I think I am comfortable with both sources being used in these ways.
Turning to the Epsom article, it is perhaps true that the EEHE website is used more frequently as a source than might be considered desirable, but when I rewrote the page before WP:GAN, the UK was only just opening up after the Christmas 2020/21 lockdown, so sources were harder to access. That said, I have had a quick look through and I think the general principles that I outlined above (i.e. post-1800, straightforward facts) are almost always followed, and I don't feel uncomfortable with my use of the EEHE website in any of the cases where I've cited it.
I hope this helps and thanks again for the notification. Best wishes Mertbiol ( talk) 18:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Epsom&oldid=1207124163"