Talk:Guildford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Openstreetmap logo.svg OpenStreetMap held a mapping party in this area on 28-29 October 2006 to make a creative commons licensed map that may be used in Wikipedia articles.

Thanks to all those wikipedians that took part.

See http://www.openstreetmap.org for details of other planned mapping parties.

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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?[edit]

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[edit]

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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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)