User talk:SuzanneKn

		The Original Barnstar
		In recognition of your work to improve Wikipedia generally and Surrey specifically, tireless reversions of vandalism, giving willing help and incisive advice. Autodidactyl 12:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

If you're interested, there are procedures for nominating articles for deletion, at WP:AFD and WP:CSD. -- Fan-1967 22:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Watts Gallery

Thanks for the pic - very quickly spotted! --mervyn 20:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Suzanne,

I really appreciate your contribs to Surrey articles. Most of articles about South England towns are a mess! Anyways I think River Wey has simply too many photographs... I didnt have heart to delete them. I think an article the size of River Wey should have only one photograph. Do cosider removing the clutter. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 16:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

that anonymous IP was me! All maps are autogenerated all you need to do is add the lat and long in the infobox... Anyways good to see somebody from Surrey here! There arent that many people editing articles related to English geography... BTW you could join http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography. I wont be active till June (got A Levels!) but do hope to see you around when i'm back!

Adios Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 00:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Geology of London, was selected for DYK!

On January 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Geology of London, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 18:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank for cleaning my fish page. It was the first time I put something on Wiki, so I really appreciated your help.--ltjemmes 16:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

In response to your recent note about The Bird in a Cage entry: you may be right about the spoiler tags in an entry for a play this old. They make good markers for a synopsis, though perhaps not the best. I've seen lots of Wikipedia entries for Elizabethan plays, but none of them have Info boxes. Is there an appropriate info-box set-up? Ugajin 05:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello SuzanneKn

I am less cross than your previous correspondent, in fact I am not cross at all. Re Geology of England and maps of french chalk deposits.  ::Try this one from Southampton university. [1] it gives a clear view of the french chalk etc. Anons cannot upload images and anyway I don't know how. Good luck. PeterKn. 80.229.29.19

Borough v town

Generally speaking, in other counties, where a local government district/borough approximates to a single town, there is a single article; where the district has a much larger area than the town there will be two articles.

Woking: when the borough was created in 1974 it was identical to the Woking Urban District, and therefore included no rural parishes, just a single unparished area so the town and borough as far as the census was concerned would have been the same thing.

On dipping into Youngs' Local Administrative Units I see that Woking UD was expanded in 1907 to include Horsall and in 1933 to include Byfleet and Pyrford.

In 1989 a parish of Byfleet was created from part of the unparished area. I'm not familiar with the area, so I don't know if Byfleet (or indeed Horsall and Pyrford) is a genuinely separate area or a continuous suburb of Woking. If the former, I suppose you could say that means that the *town* of Woking is the borough less those bits? The census figures are compiled for wards, and the creation of a population figure for that area by the agglomeration of wards is probably WP:OR.

We *could* have a Woking (borough) article and a Woking article if the two are significantly different: there is a Guildford page and also an article for the much larger Guildford (borough), which includes quite a few rural parishes. You can be the judge of that! WP:BOLD

Incidentally, I notice from the Byfleet article that the parish council actually sought its abolition! Lozleader 20:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hullo

Ayatollah Gurkhmeini has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Links on Send, Surrey

I don't see how removing all of the links bar one from the Send, Surrey page is at all productive and at least some of them should be reinstated since I don't believe references to tell us where to find a picture of St Mary's Church or that there is sailing on papercourt lake are necessary since nobody is likely to dispute that fact. Therefore I feel the page would be better off with at least websites such as Send Village Online being shifted back into the external links section since they do provide relevant information.

I won't re-edit them till you have responded but I'm just interested to discover your reasons behind this bar the list possibly needing cutting.

--Ashl 20:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Epsom Downs and Racecourse

I liked your idea about renaming the article. I ran the idea past User:Zafonic, who does an incredible amount of excellent work on British racing and he was very much in agreement. However, renaming the racecourse article would also need an article about Epsom Downs themselves written to replace it (see User_talk:Zafonic). Is that something you could take on? Bcp67 20:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Epsom Downs move - you were right to use a capital "R" in "Racecourse", although there may still be one or two titles with a lower case "r" which need looking at. As for the Epsom Derby, I think the winners list should stay where it is for now (in line with most other races) and should only be considered for a move if someone adds a lengthy essay to the article. -- Zafonic 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Doughty

After careful thought I have removed him from the Kingston article. However he is not orphaned because he has a link to the category for anaethetists and has a link to Anesthesiologist. If living in Kingston was his only link then he would have been a candidate for deletion himself. I suppose there could be a category for residents of Kingston-upon-Thames. JMcC 17:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar!

That's really cool of you - first I've ever got. That cheered me up after failing my RfA. :)

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 16:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Eastleigh (borough) Surrey Wildlife Trust King George Station South Park, Surrey Godley (hundred) Brookwood Cemetery Ripley, Surrey St. Helier, London Bracknell Forest South East England (European Parliament constituency) Onslow Village Holmethorpe Chiltern (district) Outwood Windmill Chessington South railway station Epsom Rural District London Road (Guildford) railway station Blackwater Valley Path Ash, Surrey

Cleanup Ulverston Town centre Earl of Surrey Merge Cranleigh School British Darts Organisation Croydon Add Sources James Hopwood Jeans Chessington Martian Wikify Saatchi & Saatchi Moth (band) Dulwich Expand Lincoln, Lincolnshire Benson & Hedges Cup London and South Western Railway

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 10:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Churches

Dear Suzanne,

While I understand that Wikipedia is not a directory, I am puzzled by your removal of reference to St. Catherine of Siena Church and the King Centre, while you left references to the two C of E churches. I don't mind if you are tidying up the entry, but if you are push a POV, then this is inappropriate. I would be happy to put a small paragraph relating to Catholics in Chessington, if the reason for the removal was a tendency to towards a directory. The Catholic Church in Chessington has existed there since 1938, and was probably named St. Catherine of Siena by Italian prisoners of war in the nearby POW camp! ```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pdjenner (talk • contribs) 14:41, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your response. I am not an active editor, so I am not so up on wiki policy. I am kind of knowledgable about the Catholic Church, guess that has something to do with my day job! Pdjenner 15:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Herleva and Gilbert of Brionne

Do you have a reliable source for the claimed relationship between Herleva and Gilbert, Count of Brionne? I can't find even a hint of this in my fairly extensive library of material for Anglo-Norman England. Am I overlooking something? Has something new been uncovered?

Also, about the assertion that these four magnates owned 30% of England. Hollister says that the top 10 magnates had about 20% of the land revenues. That's revenue and not land area, but I doubt it makes that much difference. So, again, do you have a reliable source? I can look up my Hollister reference if you like (he was a prominent historian of this era). Loren Rosen 11:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That Domesday book site does look well put-together. It might be reliable for the detailed landholding information from Domesday (which is relatively easy to verify, though there are interpretive issues regarding Domesday and problems with consistency of the information between different counties). But I don't see any reason to trust it regarding the biographical details. The underlying difficulty is that the historical record from this period is spotty and contradictory. Also, myths get created because some 18th genealogist wanted to believe he was "descended from the Conqueror", and then get perpetuated for centuries.

Actually the 30% figure may be correct given that one of the four is the king himself, who Hollister says kept about 17% as "the king's land". But it's misleading to lump the king and others together. Loren Rosen 19:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Horley (Reigate Hundred)

Suzanne: Can you help with an addition you made to "Horley" regarding the Reigate Hundred? I'm a little bit worried by the way the addition of "The village lay within the Reigate hundred, an Anglo-Saxon administrative division." may contridict the later "No mention is made of Horley in the Domesday Book and it is thought to have been included in the northern manor returns". Many thanks, 193.128.2.2 11:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)