Talk:Liphook

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


Untitled[edit]

Liphook United Football Club subsection didn't really fit with the rest of the page and was (relevant) advertising, so I pulled it into the external links section. Caliston 17:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Wingfield[edit]

Why no mention of Pete Wingfield, who seems to be quite possibly the most notable person to have been born in Liphook? Gwladys24 (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tony Holkham (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable People[edit]

Having mentioned Teahouse, are you Tony Holkham going to do that? I am not yet capable. SovalValtos (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'll do that. But tomorrow. Tony Holkham (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Notable people answers the point. It's saying leave them in if notable (by Wikipedia criteria) and remove them if not. Tony Holkham (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Does anyone have any justification for the inclusion of images in the body of the article, of a supermarket and the train station? I propose to delete, replace or just link via Commons. SovalValtos (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liphook Photos[edit]

A problem seems to have developed with photo links. I will not interfere SovalValtos (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was strange, and I've never seen it before, but it seems to be OK now, all on its own. Cheers.... Tony Holkham (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just a computer moment. A separate subject; should new subjects start on new lines? In Sport, golf would have a new line, in Attractions Carnival SovalValtos (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked for a guideline on this, but my take on it is that if there's not too much to say on a subsection, then it looks better in one paragraph, otherwise it gets a bit "list-like" and doesn't flow. I suppose it's a toss-up between list and narrative styles; I tend to go for the latter but it's not necessarily the "right" way, of course.
Incidentally, what do you think of the history sections? They seem a bit wordy to me (as well as short on citations). Tony Holkham (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to look at the History later. Tuppe made me scratch my head. The context did not suggest anything to do with sheep. My old SHorter OED did not help either. Typo? SovalValtos (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Re "tuppe" - my 1925 concise OED doesn't have it either and a Google search didn't help. Tony Holkham (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

Incidentally, what do you think of the history sections? They seem a bit wordy to me (as well as short on citations). Tony Holkham (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have copied the above from Liphook Photos above, to start a new thread. I would not delete pre-coaching or coaching content, just add citations. Railway era includes stuff better covered elsewhere and not duplicated here. I have not got to the twentieth C yet. SovalValtos (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20th century. Is there evidence that Liphook Village was 'THE Base' for Canadian troops, rather than a village in an area where some trained? If so which buildings? SovalValtos (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Times, age, era are all used in the titles. For good reason ? SovalValtos (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No good reason that I can see. The whole history section needs a thorough rewrite - and references (some of those used are probably not in the public domain). The text seems to have been lifted from a community magazine and while the statements may be true, they need more solid evidence. There must be books published about Liphook somewhere; they just need tracking down.
There will be references to Canadian troops based in the Liphook area in other Wikipedia articles but some effort will be needed to locate and link them to this article (or vice versa). There will also be many printed and online references, but again an extensive search will be needed. I don't know whether Liphook is the only area hosting Canadian troops.
Something else that is missing is parish history, and GENUKI would be a good place to start. Tony Holkham (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd county areas[edit]

The map

West Sussex 1813 One Inch to the Mile map scan

shows some intriguing small areas to the southwest of Liphook of other counties. The one near Ripsley pond being very small indeed. Is it worth including a mention on this page? SovalValtos (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this article? Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844.Charles (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link. The nearest I got to the right word was exclosure rather than exclave; a feeble brain. The tiny exclave seems to be centred on Hilly Fields Copse. Ripsley pond also being called Folly pond, near Forest Mere healthfarm, Liphook. It is about 300yds square and must have been important to someone at some time. It is next to the Roman road and astride the hill. Aerial photos suggest the possibility of underlying structures.
I am getting close to OR, or un-original OR, so does anyone know more? Perhaps an archeologist might help? SovalValtos (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liphook. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liphook. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liphook. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

The article is still lacking images (two of the village centre, though!) but there are plenty on Geograph here. I don't know how to put them on Commons, though. Certainly there needs to be a pic of The Anchor. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some to commons of The Anchor and Chiltley Manor House (shown on some modern maps as Chiltlee).
The east façade of the Royal Anchor seen looking west from the square in the afternoon
The northeast corner of the Royal Anchor seen looking southwest from the square in the afternoon
Also called Chiltlee Manor House

Chiltley Manor House is prominent on the 1895 25 inch map [1] but I have not sourced anymore.SovalValtos (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a better one of Liphook station, SV, what do you think? Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better vantage point with high resolution as well; but I do not know how to add it to commons so will have to rely on another editor helping.SovalValtos (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was assuming... Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither current village centre image is ideal. A broader perspective is needed showing the relationship of the buildings and roads. An aerial or top floor vantage point might work.SovalValtos (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult with such a modest square. Shame we can't take a screen shot from Google's satellite view. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer Bottom/Vale[edit]

The Parish Council ref currently used in the article for included hamlets uses the term Hammer Vale. The poorly sourced wikipedia article for the hamlet is titled Hammer Bottom. Some maps such as [Election Maps (ordnancesurvey.co.uk)] show Hammer Vale as being the name of a road and have Hammer Bottom as a title. The OS also have [Hammer Bottom, East Hampshire - area information, map, walks and more (ordnancesurvey.co.uk)]. The OS in 1897 via NLS give the bottom as being bigger in scope [Georeferenced Maps - Map images - National Library of Scotland (nls.uk)] Are the PC being mealy-mouthed? I am having trouble giving links.SovalValtos (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vale and Bottom seem to be interchangeable, but as there is an article on Hammer Bottom, I suggest we stick to that (OS does). Parish Council are using Vale, but it must be the same place. From memory, I think the road is Vale, and the place is Bottom. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This gives a different perspective of Hammer Vale. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On Google maps the B2131 shows the road sign “Lynchmere Parish Hammer” as it leaves Shottermill towards Liphook. Shortly there is a turning right “Hammer Lane”, which becomes “Hammer Vale” on street view which stops at the “Prince of Wales” pub. There are no signs that I can see for Hammer Bottom, even though the OS uses this name. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bramshott and Liphook civil parish[edit]

It seems to me as though there might be enough for this parish to have its own article, SV, as it comprises several other settlements as well as Bramshott; currently it's a redirect to Liphook. Any thoughts? Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tony I am not sufficiently well up on the policy or guidelines on parish or community articles to know if a separate 'Bramshott and Liphook civil parish' article should be started. I suppose it might come down to whether there are adequate sources to demonstrate the notability of the parish itself rather than its component settlements. Another way would be to redirect all settlements within to the B&L parish. I have not got the energy at present to research it. Sorry.SovalValtos (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, SV, I'm not sure the parish warrants its own article, but it's a possibility for later; a definite maybe, as one might say. For my hundredth article, I may choose something more notable, and on that matter am open to suggestions. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liphook&oldid=1208193124"