Talk:Farncombe

Parishes

User:Surrey101 I can find no evidence that Farncombe is a separate civil parish, I can find no evidence or source for it having a 'parish meeting' or parish council, have you please? I have found evidence that it is part of Godalming civil parish, The ward it is in is 'Farncombe and Catteshall'. The Anglican Parish St. John Farncombe covers a similar area to the ward, but not the same.[1] [2] Neither the ward or parish include Nightingale cemetery which is in the 'Godalming Charterhouse' ward of Godalming civil parish and in the Godalming Anglican parish St Peter & St Paul. SovalValtos (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)SovalValtos (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Surrey101 to ensure all is kept together.

Have you read Talk:Farncombe regarding boundaries? They turn out to be rather different to those in the common perception. I made an error myself in describing Julius Caesar's grave as being in Farncombe when I uploaded an image of it to commons; a mistake I have now corrected. SovalValtos (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. The only official boundaries set out for Farncombe were by this, the maps set out in 1905; [3], where the boundaries of the village are highlighted in yellow. That's why we have been having edit conflicts over the matter. I do apologise, but as this is the only official boundary set up, all things in this remit I have been putting in as Farncombe, hence the Nightingale Road grave of Julius Caesar, a former owner of the Farncombe pub The Cricketers (hence its name). --Surrey101 (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC) SovalValtos (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you User:Surrey101 for your apology and the link to the National Library of Scotland facility (NLS). I had used it before but it now has many more maps available. A very valuable site for settlement articles in the UK. The link you have just introduced had not been shown on the page as a source until now, so perhaps I can be excused for not considering it?

I have not been able to find the Characteristic sheet, mentioned bottom left on the individual OS 25 inch sheets, to find exactly what the yellow lines mean. They do not seem to follow Civil Parish boundaries for example. Why do you think they show 'the boundaries of the village'? It is no good guessing, we need a source for what they meant. Further I do not accept that the 1905 map 'is the only official boundary set up' the modern ones do that as well.

I am all for keeping the historical development of boundaries. Some editors refer just to the present; not for me. The 1897 map is useful as being a third source for some sort of boundary different to the two modern ones I mentioned at the top. I think the modern state should be prime rather than a 100 year old one or one of the days of Farncombe being a Hamlet even longer ago.SovalValtos (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me, because I'm rather lost. What is the reason behind this discussion? If it's due to the introduction to the article, then it should remain as. Whilst yes, Farncombe is not a civil parish, it is still not part of Godalming, and categorising this under such is a encyclopaedic mistake. Whilst we do on Wikipedia have to refer to sources, I understand this, but local knowledge is a helpful too, and to any local of the village, stating the village was under Godalming would be a mistake. Secondly, per the images at Farncombe, there were some such as the category of Charterhouse which you reverted which whilst yes, I agree is more associated as part of Godalming, was put in this category due to it's links with the village, and it's close proximity. Boundaries are very hard to establish, but the examples you use (the church boundaries the most compelling) must be put alongside local knowledge. Many thanks. --Surrey101 (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

A proper reply will be delayed as I am awaiting material from a library.SovalValtos (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I now have some information about the yellow outline on the 25inch map. I will have more when I receive the copy of the relevant book I have ordered. The yellow lines have nothing to do directly with any settlement boundary. They are used to outline those parcel areas (commonly called parcels), of built up places for which the individual number of each parcel and its acreage were not shown on the map to avoid clutter. I hope User:Surrey101 you can now accept that you were mistaken to believe that 'The only official boundaries set out for Farncombe were by this, the maps set out in 1905', a reasonable error to make. They are not official boundaries.

If you want to persist in asserting that Farncombe is not part of Godalming in terms of governance sources will be needed for any alternative. The sources that the name is used as part of the name of one ward of the town seem incontrovertible. It is the name of one of the constituent parts or suburbs of the town along with others such as BinsteadBinscombe, Broadwater, Catteshall, Frith Hill and Holloway.

Local knowledge can be useful as an aid to editing particularly in spotting where more work is needed, but not when it leads to editorial opinion or WP:OR being added to a page. SovalValtos (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Rather than arguing about the lead of this article, why not work with me and create a lead which not only satisfies your needs but mine too?

That is why when I created this lead to the article, I used this:

"Farncombe is a village in the Borough of Waverley, Surrey, England, which is approximately 0.8 miles (1.3 km) north-west of Godalming, separated by common land known locally as the Lammas Lands".

Not only is this lead entirely accurate, Farncombe is a village in the Borough of Waverley, Surrey, England, is approximately 0.8 miles (1.3 km) north-west of Godalming and is, separated by common land known locally as the Lammas Lands. Furthermore, the use of the word "separated" does have the meaning of a unity of two separated, thereby fulfilling your argument, in a more subtle, less brash manner. At the moment, the terminology in the lead is, as I have been trying to say but to much avail, wrong. Farncombe is firstly not "within Godalming, Waverley, Surrey, England", location wise, the two are separated, as the lead states, by Lammas Land, thereby meaning, Farncombe cannot be within Godalming, but separate from, despite administratively being one. That is my argument. You have sources to back up yours, I could have too, but I do not really have the time over such a laughable and annoying dispute. Rather than hindering the development of Wikipedia and trouncing upon editors who have recently joined, helping and aiding would be a far better mechanism.

Therefore, an olive branch is required between the two of us. The current wording, despite your sources, is wrong and inaccurate. And on an Encyclopaedia where it strives for accuracy, it goes against what this site was set up for. Your sources versus local knowledge are not always right. The fact you call, what I believe for you to write, Binscombe "Binstead" further makes a mockery and exemplifies this.

There are two proposals I therefore put forward, and hope we can achieve some consensus:

The original:

"Farncombe is a village in the Borough of Waverley, Surrey, England, which is approximately 0.8 miles (1.3 km) north-west of Godalming, separated by common land known locally as the Lammas Lands".

Or:

"Farncombe is a village outside of, but administratively part of, Godalming, in the Borough of Waverley, Surrey, England. The village is approximately 0.8 miles (1.3 km) north-west of Godalming, separated by common land known locally as the Lammas Lands".

The second sounds too wordy, therefore I chose the first, as it is not inaccurate, whilst also resolving the argument.

Furthermore, with your changes to Binscombe. Binscombe was a separate entity, however, it has largely been swallowed up by Farncombe, as the two have merged creating a polyfocal settlement, meaning that taking Binscombe out of Farncombe's Common category therefore takes images of Farncombe with it, as the two have become almost one entity. As a result, this edit will be reversed. (I have not had time to fully look at the extent of your edits, so there could be further).

Many thanks, --Surrey101 (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you User:Surrey101 for pointing out my error in typing 'Binstead' instead of 'Binscombe'. I will correct it. There seems little point in going over details of wording when at the heart of the matter is the difference between my wanting to abide by WP:Golden rule and you preferring to use your local knowledge rather than sourced material. You say "You have sources to back up yours, I could have too, but I do not really have the time". Quite understandable that you do not have the time; could I suggest that you delay making further edits and reverts until you do have time or another editor provides the sourced material you are looking for to support your point of view? There is no rush.SovalValtos (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for your kind words. It really has been a warm welcome. --Surrey101 (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Farncombe. 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/20071030192829/http://www.gwp.enta.net/surrnames.htm to http://www.gwp.enta.net/surrnames.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Farncombe. 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/20120301155245/http://www.thefreeholders.co.uk/ to http://www.thefreeholders.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103162233/http://www.the-cricketers-at-farncombe.co.uk/ to http://www.the-cricketers-at-farncombe.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110822041718/http://www.exploringsurreyspast.org.uk/themes/places/surrey/waverley/godalming/godalming_the_titanic_connection to http://www.exploringsurreyspast.org.uk/themes/places/surrey/waverley/godalming/godalming_the_titanic_connection

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)