Talk:Royal Tunbridge Wells

Population comments

The population figure of 100,000 sounds very excessive... as far as I can remember, it's closer to 60,000. Does anyone know of a good UK database for population statistics?

Also, the section of famous inhabitants seems to me a very silly idea, unless it's limited to famous people of the past. If anything it makes the town look more irrelevant than it actually is - no page on any large city would list present-day celebrity residents. Palefire 03:33, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

In terms of population, I think that must be for the whole district covered by the Borough Council. This is a very confusing statistic when compared to the Sevenoaks page, for instance, that quotes its population as 18,000, which could only cover the very centre of the town itself - with suburbs taken into account, these towns are similar sizes. Some standardisation is needed.

Shoppers are best advised to choose which part of the town they are most interested in (the old Pantiles and "Village" area to the south of the town, or the newer area around the Victoria Shopping Centre) before they go, as each area is separated and is thus not easy to walk between. This is subjective, I find the walk between these two areas very pleasant and takes all of 10 minutes. MilkmanDan 12:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if MilkmanDan's comments above are potentially misleading. Whilst I agree that it can take 10 minutes to walk between the new (clone town) part of Tunbridge Wells and the older High Street/Chapel Place/Pantiles end of town, the comment makes it sound like there's nothing in between. The route between the two areas, Mount Pleasant Road is still a major shopping area leading to the town' railway station which is in the middle of the two areas. There is not really any physical distinction between the areas (other than a hill), it is more of a linear town from Royal Victoria Place all the way down the hill to the Pantiles. The two areas are not seperated. --JezzBrookes 12:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Population figures amended to allow for difference between town and borough. Source cited.--Silver149 08:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Social deprivation in T Wells

I do not want to diminish the primary thrust of MJD's comments regarding bourgeois T Wells vs social deprivation in certain parts - High Brooms springs to mind. However I would like to see evidence of high truancy, drug taking and crime rates compared with other areas even in Kent before the statements are made so categorically. My understanding is that truancy rates vary from virtually zero at the top end to ca 2.5 times the national average at T Well's "sink" school. Drug dealing is anecdotaly alleged to be the highest in the south east between London and the coast but I understand the police and social services to claim there is no greater problem here than in any otehr comparable town. The same is true for crime. See http://www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/MASmedia_SB/viewSite?requestType=viewPage&siteId=232&pageId=4407 for more information. --Silver149 5 July 2005 08:38 (UTC)

Inappropriate spelling changes

The most recent mod has changed a few words from British to American spelling. Since this is an article about a British town, they should have been left as-is.

As per {{User-AmE-0}}. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano 10:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming

Since the town is commonly known as Tunbridge Wells, should that not be this article's name under the WP naming conventions (use common name)? -- Necrothesp 13:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's known as Royal Tunbridge Wells almost as much as it's known as Tunbridge Wells, so it's about six (or maybe five) of one half a dozen of the other.--ElvisThePrince 11:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The statement "To this day, Royal Tunbridge Wells is one of only two towns in England to be granted [the title Royal], the other being Royal Leamington Spa." is surely wrong. Lyme Regis? Bognor Regis? Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead?

Ingoring for the mkinuite the fact that Bognor at the very least decided to call themselves Regis, neithier Bognor nor Lyme are Royal Bognor, etc., finally there are actualy quite a few Royal Borough's quite apart from Windsor and Maidenhead but they are not Royal Towns but quite clearly Royal Borough's.

List of UK place names with royal patronage has more details.--ElvisThePrince 11:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be named Tunbridge Wells. I'd never even heard of "Royal Tunbridge Wells" until I got redirected to this page! -- Thanks, Arriva436^shout! 22:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

then you're obviously not from around here. the signs on the roads entering the town all say "Royal Tunbridge Wells" because it is the towns correct name and the page should definitely remain titled as such. Mister sparky (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Old topic but still relevant. The name of the town is Tunbridge Wells. The royal chater simply granted a right, not an obligation, to use the term 'royal'. The correct wikipedia way to view this is what is the name used by reliable sources. Although both names are used, Tunbridge Wells is probably used more often. A quick google search comparison, which might give an indication of hits, is not really possible because omitting the term 'royal' cannot really be done in a search. I suggest we rename this article quickly, in line with wp policy and with the Leamington article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The town's name is Royal Tunbridge Wells, that is what the Ordnance Survey and Encyclopædia Britannica use (although just like Stratford-upon-Avon, it has content forked at the district article). By contrast the entry for Rhode Island does not use the "long" name similar to us at WP:CONCISE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Suspected Advertising

I can't see how singling "Pomeroi" out (and providing a link to its website as a reference!) or indeed naming certain other shops over others can be seen as anything but advertising... 192.93.164.20 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC) I agree-Can we keep the advertising on a leash please-lets just stick to facts and fiqures,not personal opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladerunner63 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Parks

I have added a section on parks, with each park being given its own sub-heading. This is with the intension of developing each parks content, so the sections get bigger. At the moment they look a little short and therefore maybe not suited to subheadings, but eventually i intend to add more so bullet points (or similar would be unsuitable). I also intend to develop an independent article on Dunorlan Park as I is of such historical importance and such a popular location in the town. It would be good to develop more in the Commons and Wellington Rocks too. McKDandy 19:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Crime

Are the crime rate figures for the district as whole, not for the town? These figures diffe, and are given in a different format - although for another year? Peter Shearan (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Industrial estates and employers

I have removed the paragraphs on industrial estates and employers, partly because they didn't seem to fit in a "Geography" section, partly because they don't seem to be particularly relevant to the article - it's not as though Tunbridge Wells is known for any of those employers, and I think the location of industrial estates is more suited to the Yellow Pages than to an encyclopaedia (though I concede that could be a matter of opinion), and partly because the Pantiles and the old Cinema aren't actually industrial estates. Simon 78.149.147.223 (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

External Links section

Out of interest I wonder why my blog, http://anke.blogs.com, is always removed from the External Links no matter who inserts it. Bear with me here. Firstly it is not a personal blog anymore but the largest online repository of the history and culture of Tunbridge Wells, and more significantly contains many historic articles about Tunbridge Wells that just do not exist anywhere else online. I know it's called a blog but it's evolved into more than that. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankehuber (talk • contribs) 08:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The External Links section is burgeoning to say the least - do we really think the article for Tunbridge Wells can justify having more external links than the article for London?! - and it reads like a combination of tourist office and church notice board. I pared it back to what I considered were the bare bones, but User:Ankehuber reinstated the links (including one to a personal blog run by someone called "Anke"...). When I added information about the Tunbridge Wells Half Marathon I linked to the Tunbridge Wells Harriers website in the main body of the text; surely this is preferable to a list of 18 external links (some to entities that aren't even mentioned in the article). Remember, Wikipedia is not a repository of links.

It isn't really appropriate to include an external link to a church, a shopping centre and someone's blog - the guidelines state that links to blogs, commercial websites and links intended mainly to promote a website should all be avoided. With this in mind I have reverted to the more streamlined list of links.

Sjc196 (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Amenities" section

I have merged the Amenities section with the rest of the article because, although it had some good information, it seemed more like a tourist brochure than an encyclopaedia (see related criticism of the TW article at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Kent/To_Do) and was inconsistent with the approach taken on other Kent articles such as Canterbury and Maidstone.

Sjc196 (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Article...?

I think this article now seems to meet the criteria to be considered a Good Article - see Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria. I don't know the procedure - do we just add it to the list for consideration, or is there more to it than that?

Sjc196 (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading about the nominations criteria I don't see why it shouldn't be nominated for review, so I've put it on the list. Sjc196 (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Reviews

The two GA reviews for this article can be found at Talk:Royal Tunbridge Wells/GA1 and Talk:Royal Tunbridge Wells/GA2. -epicAdam^(talk) 19:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No information on whereabouts/condition/use/extent of Tunbridge Wells spring

Up to date information on the chalybeate spring in Tunbridge Wells is completely absent from the article on Tunbridge Wells.

Is it still used? Does it still exist? Where is it? Does "Well" in Tunbridge "Wells" refer to the spring? Is there more than one spring outlet? Is there a building over the spring? A picture of the building? Inside the building? Can we have a picture of the water the spring produces? Who manages the spring? Is it still considered to have healing properties? What is the extent of "spa" or "resort" businesses/facilities that depend on the spring's existence?

GGBiscuit (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC) (New Zealand)

There is a primary source here. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Royal Tunbridge Wells

Coordinates are currently given as:

51° 13′ 32″ N, 0° 15′ 52″ E 51.225556, 0.264444

These coordinates are not correct. Click on Google Maps link to see why. Instead of taking one to the centre of Royal Tunbridge Wells, one ends up in a field south of Horn's Lodge Lane, about 250 metres west south west of Stacey's Wood, about 12 km north of the centre of Royal Tunbridge Wells

—{{subst:124.185.15.244 (talk) 10:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)}}

The correct (or more correct at least) coordinates would seem to be: loc: 51.1289° N, 0.2608° E. I obtained these values simply by typing "latitude and longitude royal tunbridge wells UK" into Google. The first result gave me loc: 51.1289° N, 0.2608° E which takes one to the centre of Tunbridge Wells as opposed to the middle of a field 12 km to its north. 124.185.15.244 (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

OK - fixed. Clicking on the Google Maps link now takes one to the centre of the town. 124.185.15.244 (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation change help?

I apologize, I'm a newbie. I added citation #58 about Tunbridge Wells being mentioned in Fanny Burney's novel, Camilla. Since adding this, I have learned the book's publication date (1796) but cannot find how to add that to the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathsuds (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

DoneCharles (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Royal Tunbridge Wells. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081003202759/http://www.kent.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/26B76DCA-8628-4DAF-886A-2B9B766625A1/0/ep07tunbridgewells.pdf to http://www.kent.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/26B76DCA-8628-4DAF-886A-2B9B766625A1/0/ep07tunbridgewells.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110929043538/http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Press-Releases/BIGGER-AND-BETTER-SERVICES-FROM-TUNBRIDGE-WELLS-106c.aspx to http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Press-Releases/BIGGER-AND-BETTER-SERVICES-FROM-TUNBRIDGE-WELLS-106c.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"Tunny Wells"

"Tummy Tunny Wells" is a slang term and as I said in the edit summary the only people that use it'are uneducated chavs and the cite is simply a transcript of chavs having a conversation ....., I don't believe anyone has ever called it "Tummy Wells" and are unlikely to ever do so so it's pointless mentioning it IMHO. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite agree. I have been to this town numerous times and I have never ever heard it called that. Beau Nash would spin in his grave if that slang ever became a common name for his town. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

He's probably already spinning just at the sheer awfulness of the name! , –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

People call it 'Tunny Wells' (NOT TuMMy Wells). I have cited many sources for this. Just because you don't agree with it does not make it wrong. May I point out that 'Tunbridge Wells' is also slang - a shortening of Royal Tunbridge Wells. 77.221.165.120 (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hence why the page is titled "Royal Tunbridge Wells" (and I try my best to ensure that the full name is used whenever I come across it on Wikipedia), however "Tunbridge Wells" is an accurate historic name that is also a commonly used alternative. Your proposal is not. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• My bad ... It obviously should've said "Tunny", Tunbridge Wells is a common name and is used by many shops and bus operators [1][2][3][4] .... "Tunny Wells" on the otherhand is slang and doesn't deserve mentions, The day this ever gets accepted on this article will be the day "the shithole of Medway" will be accepted on Chatham....., So stop edit warring and accept the fact "Tunny Wells" won't ever be accepted here. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It deserves a mention in the intro, perhaps by saying 'informally called Tunny Wells'. It is a shortening of Tunbridge Wells that many many people use for convenience. Conversely, saying "The Shithole of Medway" is not a shortening of Chatham, and is clearly derogatory. Read "Country Life" Volume 139, page 656 (on Google Books). The abbreviation has been in use since at least the 60s! Many many people say 'Tunny Wells', and Wikipedia should not be the preserve of the upper-class toffs who can't accept that many other people use a different name for the town. 77.221.165.120 (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That source refers to a farmer giving names to surrounding fields and has nothing to do with the town, or should we add Tommy Spades or Free Rings to the article too as per the source? A rarely used slang term in the intro would give this GA a bit of WP:UNDUE which isn't helpful. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

To say it is rarely used is ridiculous. It is used very frequently among many people within the town - or do their opinions mean nothing to you?31.221.51.61 (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Opinions only mean anything if they have been reported in reliable published sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, certainly not a dictionary of slang. I do not see any reason to include this as things stand.Charles (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

And as I said earlier, I go to this town regularly and I have never heard the residents ever use that expression. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Between 2012-2014 I must've gone there like 20 times .... and like you not once did I see the name nor had anyone said it ..... So I think we can all agree the slang term shouldn't ever be included. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

As a Tunbridge Wells resident, I can say that I have heard this countless times! I have never seen such a ridiculous debate. Here are some sources below and I could cite many more...

Reliable published books

1) Rambles in Sussex (1922), Frederick Gaspard Brabant, Page 34

2) The Tonbridge Circular Walk (2015), Deborah Cole, Page 103

3) Wellspring: A Portrait in Verse of Royal Tunbridge Wells (1995), Colin Aston, Page 42

4) By Royal Appointment: Why Do They Call it Royal Tunbridge Wells? (2009), Chris Jones, Page 82

5) Villages Around Old Maidstone (1980), Irene Hales, Page 13

Informal sites http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing//topic.asp?h=0&t=121501&mid=0&nmt=Spotted+in+and+around+Tunbridge+Wells http://www.4networking.biz/Forum/ViewTopic/98642 https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/2fgjmg/council_flat_swap_from_tunny_wells_to_glasgow/ http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g186315-d2700540-r151309843-Giggling_Squid-Royal_Tunbridge_Wells_Kent_England.html http://www.mapmyrun.com/gb/royal-tunbridge-wells-eng/tunny-wells-10k-route-51003950 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzuwD_6b4ys http://tunnywell.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/wild-woods-of-tunny-wells.html http://heyevent.uk/event/4vzt4facpbroga/phoebe-katis-headline-the-pheasantry-pizza-express-161215 http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/viewtopic.php?t=13657&p=190252 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ridgewaye-secondary-tunny-wells/110597155628157 https://twitter.com/lucywestbrooke/status/264281770214686720 http://www.kentonline.co.uk/tunbridge-wells/news/poundland-to-open-in-tunbridge-44336/ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sweet-Home-Tunny-Wells/131898033565940 http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g186315-d720495-r305317844-Sankey_s-Royal_Tunbridge_Wells_Kent_England.htmlTheEditorUK2015 (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree, this debate is ridiculous. I agree that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but what kind of an encyclopedia only keeps what the editors find appealing? Now that the user has backed it up with quite a few references, I see no reason for it to be removed again.78.157.8.97 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

For a start, none of those are WP:RS, second what is the ISBN for these books that supposedly use it? And thirdly even if there is a passing reference, that is not indicative of it being a common name for the town and thus shouldn't be included in the article, let alone in the intro. I would say this is a case of WP:HORSEMEAT. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The C of E's correct - those aren't reliable sources and I don't consider the book or link to a random users comment as a cite and I don't think it's enough to warrant inclusion of the slang name ..... so I've reverted the recent addition. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The user has provided many books and citations, and said he could provide more. Before continually removing his edits it would be respectful to follow the process of questioning it further with him and allowing him the opportunity to provide satisfactory response to your concerns.80.229.35.173 (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

All of which aren't reliable sources, You and your friends may aswell give up as it's not going on the article. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 09:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

TheEditor has provided notable books discussing the topic of Kent, Tunbridge Wells and the surrounding counties. I find the term 'Tunny Wells' to be distasteful but I must concede that it is frequently used by many familiar with the town. Please can you elucidate on the reasons you consider these printed publications to be unreliable? CountyOfKent (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• As we're not reaching any agreements and instead are just edit warring I've started an RFC which is below, Thanks ,–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Davey2010 - My concern is that you have not provided any constructive critique of the printed publications cited by TheEditor. I don't find it a pleasant name for the town, however we cannot ignore the evolution of language. I expect the first use of 'Tunbridge' was considered a travesty by some people in it's day. CountyOfKent (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Page protected

The page is protected for three days. Please use that time to obtain consensus for the content that is being edit-warred over. Further edit-warring after protection is lifted may result in blocks being handed out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article include the slang term "Tunny Wells" ? (I personally don't think it should but as we're not reaching any agreements above I think it's best to seek opinions from outsiders), Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion the debate above has been focused on the wrong issues. The chief issue is one of weight. It is irrelevant how anyone "feels" about it use. It is also irrelevant whether it is the common name. That is an article titling standard, and has nothing to say as to whether we mention an alternate title in the lead or elsewhere WP:OTHERNAMES, on the other hand, is relevant: "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." So, we return to weight. Does a survey of reliable sources reveal use of the title in sufficient number such that its use is warranted – making it a "significant viewpoint ... that ha[s] been published by reliable sources, in proportion to [the] prominence of [that] viewpoint in ... published, reliable sources"? Having set what I believe to be the correct stage for the question, I wished to finish this post by falling on one side of the issue or the other, citing to source results in support, but I literally have to run out of the door.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources that have been provided are not RSes and all I have looked for of this term indicates that it is an uncommon slang term but is in no way widespread or covered in RS that you would expect it to be. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that the OP cited several reliable published works (below), and offered to provide more:

1) Rambles in Sussex (1922), Frederick Gaspard Brabant, Page 34

2) The Tonbridge Circular Walk (2015), Deborah Cole, Page 103

3) Wellspring: A Portrait in Verse of Royal Tunbridge Wells (1995), Colin Aston, Page 42

4) By Royal Appointment: Why Do They Call it Royal Tunbridge Wells? (2009), Chris Jones, Page 82

5) Villages Around Old Maidstone (1980), Irene Hales, Page 13

CountyOfKent (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Where are the ISBN numbers so we can check? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

A simple search on Google will show you the ISBN numbers - or the OP can provide them. CountyOfKent (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@TheEditorUK2015 please provide ISBN numbersCountyOfKent (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

ISBNs....

1) Rambles in Sussex (1922), Frederick Gaspard Brabant, Page 34 = 9781275385931

2) The Tonbridge Circular Walk (2015), Deborah Cole, Page 103 = 9781908616357

3) Wellspring: A Portrait in Verse of Royal Tunbridge Wells (1995), Colin Aston, Page 42 = 9780952518716

4) By Royal Appointment: Why Do They Call it Royal Tunbridge Wells? (2009), Chris Jones, Page 82 =9780956094414

5) Villages Around Old Maidstone (1980), Irene Hales, Page 13 = 9780905270234

TheEditorUK2015 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

No the article should not include the term it doesnt appear to be widely used if at all outside of internet blogs so is hardly of note in the long history of the town to include in the article. I suspect most people from Tunbridge Wells would look at you strange if you used the term. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. I've just done the survey of sources my first post contemplated. There are two possibly relevant Google News source results, Daily Mail, et ano, but both show because of user-generated commentary on the news article; "Tunny Wells" does not appear in either article itself. Of the five total sources found through Google Books, they all appear to be false-positives. The mention in Country Life, for example, is of the name of a local meadow. Of the ones that have no preview, none seem likely to have mentioned the name in relation to this topic. e.g., given the topic of the Judy Blume book and that she is an American writer I doubt any mention is about this town.

  Turning to a more targeted resource, the British Newspaper Archive finds zero results for the exact expression (caveat: though it searches about 13 million newspaper pages, few are after about 1955). A search of The Guardian finds one result, and it's another where it's from user commentary than in the article itself. To give that lack some context, a contrasting search for "Tunbridge Wells" returns about 116,000 results at The Guardian. Nothing at The Times either.

  In sum, it does appear there is informal usage, but so few – including assuming the five sources put forward above include rare mentions – in reliable sources, that it would be undue weight to include it as an alternate title. It's a name, but apparently not a "significant alternative..." one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• For inclusion. I used to live in Tunbridge Wells for 20 years - I heard people say it almost every day. If you search for Tunbridge Wells of course you will get many results that are the official name, Royal Tunbridge Wells - which would explain the high number of results in Google. 80.231.171.215 (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - I live within 10 miles of the place and it's not an expression used to my knowledge. People speak of going to "The Wells" or to "Tunbridge Wells", but that's about it. The "Royal" bit never gets a mention. Mjroots (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• For inclusion Given I lived there for 20 years I think I would know. 80.231.171.215 (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose For my reasons given above and also based on Fuhghettaboutit's research of the purported sources. And also to counter the claims of the above on a personal note, I have also been visiting this town for more than 20 years and I have never, never ever heard anyone use that phrase for the town. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• For Anyone saying nobody uses the phrase obviously doesn't live in the town or visit it often at all. Wikipedia is meant to be an impartial resource reflecting usage of all people. It is clear that within this Talk page the opposition consider only a certain type of person would say the term 'tunny wells'- so what? Do their opinions mean nothing? It makes no difference whether the term is written in a forum or a newsprint. We are talking about usage, not veracity or reliability of a information. The very usage of the word in any instance is self-verifying. I would generally expect a printed publication to use the official town name, but that's not to say the authors wouldn't say 'tunny wells' informally in other circumstances CountyOfKent (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Where's the WP:RS for this claim that the authors use it? If the authors don't use it in their published works, then its obviously not a common name in use. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers generally use a more formal terminology when explaining anything. For example..they won't say it's 'pissing it down' outside, because even though many people use that expression to describe rainy weather, in general a printed newspaper will explain the weather in a more formal manner. The fact that many people in forums and quoted within news articles use the name "tunny wells" shows that many people refer to the town in this way. For a word or place name to be commonly used does not necessitate that newspapers and articles use it, just that people can be demonstrated to be using it a lot. As has been shown repeatedly above, the name Tunny Wells is being used countless times throughout many sources.CountyOfKent (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit already debunk the claims that those sources were reliable or that it was even in widespread use. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with this - the OP provided quite a few reliable sources. Five published books on the topic of Tunbridge Wells (and he offered to provide more sources). How can you get any more relevant or reliable than that? I have not seen anyone respond directly to these references in any meaningful way 80.231.171.215 (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• For Inclusion Tunny Wells is used throughout the town - I live here and I say it regularly, as do many other people I know 213.205.194.241 (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• For Inclusion I see no reason not to include the term "Tunny Wells" in the article. It is obvious the term is used, it should not be removed because of someone's personal preference. 77.28.180.123 (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see the overwhelming consensus is that we should keep Tunny Wells in the article. I'll leave this for a few hours and then close the request for opinions.TheEditorUK2015 (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree here. For a start the majority of those in support are IPs, most of which have either duplicated !votes or have just copied almost word for word what others are saying without responding to the case that sources provides aren't RS. Not to mention they are not giving any valid policy based reasons for support aside of "Me and my friends Rupert and Roy use it" which is a case of WP:LIKE and WP:USEFUL. After all, an RFC is not a vote. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@TheEditorUK2015: You may not close the discussion as you participated in it and took a side on the issue; you would have an obvious conflict of interest in doing so. Any closure by you (or by me, or by anyone who has participated) is patently improper. That basic tenet is reflected at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure and WP:BADNAC and specifically for an RfC by Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. See also WP:NACD and WP:INVOLVED by analogy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose unless significant and reliable sources are found. This is not a ballot and opinions and unverifiable claims by IP (or any) editors do not carry any weight in the eventual outcome of this discussion.Charles (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose It's not a question whether this is slang or not, but how representative this is. Such a judgement of representativeness can only be made on the basis of adequate sources. So far I cannot see any. Mootros (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Note I will just say that per this judgement at ANI, most of the !support voters have been blocked for sockpuppetry, which I suspect has been happening in this discussion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This: WP:PLACE#General_guidelines#2.The lead and WP:ALTNAME#Separate_section_usage seems to discourage such usages. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Royal Tunbridge Wells/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

This article needs a good deal of work to bring it up to standard. It is top-heavy with lists -particularly the two lists of people and the External links - see below the introductory paragraph should be just that - a summary of the article. Anything to do with the borough (eg population) should be kept for that article. Town twinning is not for here either - a Culture section might be the answer the history of Tunbridge Wells does not properly begin in 1606, and there was some while before anyone lived here (see later on in the article). The site itself should be considered - eg stone quarrying went on here in Roman times the town name deserves a special para (Toponymy?) there must be a Geography section - where the site of the town is considered, and the underlying geology = the springs. too much of the article reads like a tourist pamphlet - "the Pantiles can be found ..." "grand Georgian hotels". And there is always the assumption that "prim middle classes" and the "bastion of the middle classes and comfortable bourgeois" are what is the perception of the town. Readers of the article may be from anywhere, and just because in the past the media might have put that about, it means nothing if you are not "English". The "Staying and Eating in Tunbridge Wells" makes the point far better than I can - we are not the tourist industry. it is the norm for schools to refer to the List of schools in Kent and this para to be used for extra comments - no list and the same goes for people lists which should be combined and moved to a standard List of people from Tunbridge Wells (compare List of people from Dover, since there are 74 names here. also far too many External links - some are not referred to in the text and many are tourist-based; three are photographs of the town Peter Shearan (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC) I believe all of these issues have now been resolved. Sjc196 (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 05:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Royal Tunbridge Wells. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6WOX548Q3?url=http://www.twbc-faq.co.uk/activekb/questions.php?questionid=470 to http://www.twbc-faq.co.uk/activekb/questions.php?questionid=470
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001070557/http://www.tunbridgewellsmuseum.org/default.aspx?page=1627 to http://www.tunbridgewellsmuseum.org/default.aspx?page=1627

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) 00:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal Tunbridge Wells. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130212053951/http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/wealdwarriorsrlfc to http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/wealdwarriorsrlfc/

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) 01:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The section "Toponym" should not be an afterthought, it defines the name of the place

Toponym should have it's own standalone section at the top of the article because it defines the placename, which everything in this article is rooted to. Without a name it is nowhere. Toponym shouldn't be a subsection in the history section because the name of the town has already been used in the aforementioned section. Toponym should be the first section in the main body of the article due its singular importance. Currently positioning is like putting the cart before the horse. 150.143.66.222 (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Disagree - in this case it looks like a name that is relatively recent and therefore it makes more sense to put it at the end of the history section (as opposed to the toponomy of places which have had their name since prehistoric times). Bellowhead678 (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2023

Twenty-first century On the 6th of May 2023, the Chalybeate Spring Well was reopened by local businessman Samuel Danby [1] at the coronation of Charles III and his wife, Camilla. [2] The site also includes a QR_code animated tour guide around Tunbridge Wells produced by Quirky Motion, explaining the town's history and connection to the Royal Spring. (3)

1 - https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/the-pantiles-famous-spring-water-reopens-after-businessmans-new-venture/ar-AA1b8jTe

2 - https://visittunbridgewells.com/seasonal/coronation-weekend/a-right-royal-weekend-in-royal-tunbridge-wells/

3 - https://www.royaltwwater.com 87.74.138.91 (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Sorry but I just can't do this. The sources provided don't support everything you wish to include. [2] and [3] are self-published and overly promotional, with the latter being an advert which doesn't support the text preceding it. Finally, what you want to include is simply too short to warrant a new section at this time. The MSN article you cite contains some background that might be due for inclusion, and it links to two other sources [5] and [6] that give even more historical context for why the spring was closed, and the controversy surrounding Danby's proposals to renovate the site and reopen the attraction. There are mentions that bacteria levels spiked to dangerous levels, that could be made worse by allowing the public to access the waters directly, and that the water must be consumed immediately and can't be bottled--which raises the question of how they're able to bottle it today.

TL;DR: I suggest you draft a solid paragraph from the three independent sources given, more if you can find them, with the aim to add more historical context and less promotional material. When finished, ping me and I'll have a look. Also feel free to reopen the edit request to attract other editors in case I'm unable to respond to your ping. Thanks, Xan747 (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Royal Tunbridge Wells

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Two weeks, no attempt at improvement. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 06:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material, a lack of updates since the mid-2000s, and some instances of excessive detail/trivia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.