Talk:Wolverton

Royal Trains

It is my understanding that the royal train fleet is no longer kept at wolverton, and hasn't been since the year 2000. This article did originally state that but I see it has been replaced with a claim that the trains are actually still kept there. Is this correct? - a wolverton resident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.173.82.142 (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

No it's not correct, i've been looking after the royal fleet for 28 years! man and boy. if the qween was brave enough to ask for it to be moved to market scarborough I would say 'on yer bike!' and then laugh in her face! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.70.193.98 (talk • contribs)

The Royal Train is no longer kept in the Royal Train Shed (obviously as this is now turned into residential). Alstom keep the Royal Train components in a secure building close to Blackboards. Alstom have the contract to maintain the stock. --194.74.0.10 (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 - The Royal Train is operated and maintained by DB Schenker and stored within the remaining Railcare service depot. Ownership and management of the Royal Train Service is with Network Rail.See the Wiki article on Wolverton Works for citation from the British Royaly Family.----82.1.182.234 (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Football ground ownership

An anon editor points out (in the article rather than here, which is why user:Francs2000 correctly removed it) that the SRA no longer exists so can't be the developer or owner. The precision of the press report must be doubtful, but hey, its the MK News we're talking about.

Is it the task of a moderator to remove a correct comment in order to revert to a very inaccurate statement without doing any checks? Simply following the link to SRA would have confirmed that they were not even in existence.

At the Network Rail property FAQ, they say that they own all land in and around the railway unless it is on the Residuary Body list — and Wolverton is not one of the two sites in Milton Keynes, "Buckinghamshire". But they may well have sold it already. So, since we can only speculate about the ownership, it is best not to say anything. It doesn't really seem credible that Network Rail would get into residential property development themselves. --Concrete Cowboy 22:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Network Rail aren't doing residential property development. This is being done by the Places for People Group following acquisition of the land - amidst much fuss and publicity including acrimonious public meetings and consultations.

Surprising that there is no mention of the Velodrome in the Football Ground section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.178.220 (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The ref to NwR was 16 years ago. AFIK, even the P4P development is finished. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Velodrome

On the velodrome, the only way that this is going to get done is if you find a wp:reliable source that describes it and them you can add some new material to the article to summarise that source and wp:say where you got it. Don't worry about getting the formatting 'just so', one of the regulars will do that – the hard work is digging out a source. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think there is much inclination to do hard work to contribute to these pages due to the negative effect of over zealous gatekeepers. 81.99.178.220 (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That is true of Wikipedia as a whole. See policy Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Find the evidence and it will be very welcome to go in the article. Maybe the library or Living Archive have some ideas on where to start. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Having seen the quality of the text, the article is suffering from poor custodianship. I very much doubt that the self appointed owner has much interest in support from any source. 81.99.178.220 (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Wolverton Urban District (Council)

If somebody has the time and inclination, a section on Wolverton UDC would be good. The Vision of Britain site would provide a starting point. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Modern Wolverton

I'm not convince that the section Wolverton#Modern Wolverton has merit: it is mostly trivia. Can anyone think of a convincing reason to keep it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman Sorry for the slow reply. I shall shortly remove the uncited material, and we can then see what is left. SovalValtos (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Old Wolverton

It appears that a strange entry has been made that suggests the canal defines the naming of the areas of Old Wolverton and Wolverton Mill. In fact Holy Trinity Church and the entire Galleon estate are Old Wolverton and are west of the canal, so I suggest this paragraph is removed as completely inaccurate. It seems to be based on inaccuracies and ambiguity on the WGTC website. In fact the WGTC website shows the Church as part of Old Woverton. Furthermore, the canal runs east to west in that area, it would need to run north to south in order to bisect the area as described. 212.62.26.100 (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The text is not supported by any citation, so I have deleted it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC).

References

Article Standard

Article appears very fragmented and broken. Very low standard of curation, not helped by possessive and over-zealous adherence to a personal interpretation of guidance principles. Too many faults to list here. Sort it out or move aside and let more capable people fix it. 82.2.89.219 (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated complaints are a waste of space. You need to be specific. If you are still on about that footballer, you can ask for a more expert opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

To help you be specific, see Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements sets out the guiding principles. It is also helpful to remember that the article is is intended to be of use to someone from e.g. Wolverhampton, not someone from New Bradwell. It can never have the kind of detail that Living Archive or the Heritage Association cover. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)