Talk:Teddington

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

UK geography Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. London Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. inactive .River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames articles

City of London flag is incorrect, it doesn't apply to Greater London or to those towns/boroughs under the jurisdiction of the GLA/Mayor. Does anyone have a copy of the Teddington crest (a picture of a swan) or failing that a copy of the Middlesex coat of arms?

Somebody is keen to tell us that "Teddington is a leafy, green and highly desirable London suburb" (my emphasis). See the article's recent history for the editor's persistence.

He or she can either (a) provide clear evidence for the assertion that Teddington is significantly leafier, greener or more highly desirable than its neighbours, or (b) see such talk deleted per

I hate to say it but I think that person is right because I heard somewhere that there are loads of trees and also apparently there is a huge park in Teddington. Hey ho, he or she may be wrong.87.113.24.102 19:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are loads of trees. There are also loads of trees in Richmond, Hampton Hill, Ham, etc. In effect (if perhaps not formally), the huge park is not part of Teddington; it's next to Teddington. And you haven't made even the feeblest attempt to show how the suburb is more "desirable" than others. Do please remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not second-form secondary-school homework. -- Hoary 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry what? I was just saying that he or she may of been right. No need to be so rude.87.112.90.232 10:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also in this person's defence they probably know a lot more about Teddington than you do.87.112.90.232 10:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would like to point out that your precious article contradicts what you say. You said that Bushy Park is next to Teddington, whilst the article says that Teddington is "home" to the park. Please don't waste my time with unencyclopedic nonsense and do please remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not second-form secondary-school homework.87.112.90.232 11:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC) It's pretty widely accepted that Teddington is leafy and desirable - that's why house prices are so high in Teddington. I've worked and lived in the area for around 10 years and most of the roads off the high street (particularly on the river side) are either lined or dotted with trees. There are a few green areas about, the river area of Teddington is lined with trees and Bushy Park borders Teddington (it also borders other towns but it is considered an asset and benefit of living in Teddington so why not list it under the Teddington Wiki page). Have a look at any map of the area and you can see this for yourself. Saying that Teddington is leafy doesn't mean that its more leafy than Richmond etc - just that it's green in itself, as is Richmond. Also using the word 'desirable' doesn't mean it's more desirable than its neighbours, just more desirable than the average town. Waldopepper 21:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First "pretty widely accepted" is the wrong standard for inclusion; can anyone cite a

point of view and so doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. It doesn't add anything substantial to the article, so why include it? What is the purpose? Its just hyperbole, its probably true of thousandsw of places, it isn't measureable so how do you decide which places it applies to? Gwernol 20:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Let me get this straight, youre argument for why 'leafy, green and highly desirable' shouldn't be in this article is comparison, ha! It is easy to compare anything to anyhting. For example everyone knows Tokyo is a big city, oh but hold on when you compare it to space it's not so big. Well, there's a shock. So now that I've proven your comparison argument is wrong I shall use the magic of numbers. Teddington is home to the 2nd largest park in London and there are hundreds of trees.87.113.81.113 22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not my argument - please read what I wrote rather than what you hope I wrote. In the meantime, please be aware that persistent

three revert policy can both lead to blocking of your ability to edit Wikipedia. Thanks, Gwernol 22:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Just because you know you are wrong. How much do you actually know about Teddington?Mushimight

OK no worries, I was just answering Hoary's request for evidence (see above), but Wikipedia should not be objective in any case. The description in question could be interpreted as information about the town, but could fall on the side of simply a point of view - it's probably best left out anyway. It's always difficult to judge these comments depending on the article - something like "Hendrix was the most influential and talented electric guitarist in rock music history" is useful information, but still based on opinions, albeit widely accepted ones and it's sometimes difficult to cite collective sources of such views which you should really do. Waldopepper 23:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK how about, "Teddington has been described as leafy,green and highly desirable" or something along those lines.87.112.85.183 10:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be a good approach, though you'd need provide a

reliable source which I'm guessing wouldn't be too hard to find. Gwernol 10:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Would a reliable source be the people around the area?87.113.22.38 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so because it could easily be no more than a collection of points of view from various unnamed sources. You could perhaps claim consensus, but this would also require a reliable source (in response to 87.113.81.113 to describe something as "a big city" is to compare it to other cities, not to space and thus can be proved statistically), I I think some of the comments above were unnecessarily rude, and Teddington certainly is leafy, green and highly desirable to a great many people, but it can't go in the article without a source. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by The Angel of Islington (talk • contribs) 03:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

Thank you. Alexllew 18:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a request for this to be protected. Alexllew 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went for a walk yesterday and found the place (a) leafy (too many leafs if you ask me, but that's autumn for you); (b) green (positively verdant, this time of year); and (c) highly desirable (as attested to by the exorbitant prices in the estate agents' windows and the corresponding sold boards outside sundry houses). So the case would seem to be proved (proven?). 78.146.152.164 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes. Lots of leaves in Kew, too, and even more exorbitant prices.

I see that yet another IP has just now attempted again to stick in this stuff. So I deleted it. Further attempts to add this stuff will be treated as merely disruptive. -- Hoary 14:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Teddington is "leafy, green and highly desirable". However, my wife, who is from a small town in South Africa would describe Teddington as "bricky, urban and undesirable". She would do this on the basis that a) Teddington is full of houses, b) it's part of London and c) she doesn't like cities. That's rather obvious, but only from her perspective. You're comparing Teddington with other parts of London. She's comparing them with rural South Africa. THAT's why Wikipedia is not the place for unverified opinions, so please *stop it*. The Angel of Islington 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a) I've added the description 'leafy, desirable', sourced to an article in a national broadsheet newspaper b) I had no involvement in the exchanges above, this is the first time I've looked at this article c) I don't live, work or have any other personal involvement in or with Teddington Londonarchitect (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your sourcery and sanity, both most welcome.

I do wonder, though. I think that a large percentage of London could be called leafy and that sources could be dug up to back this up, and that much of London could similarly be called desirable, no matter how little Mrs Angel of Islington might want to live there. If all the articles had this extra, um, information, would this be of help? -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The area of south London where I live would never be described in these terms - more like 'urban, gritty', therefore this type of description, so long as it is sourced, differentiates and explains the character of the area. So yes I think this information does help. Londonarchitect (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary on reflection I do agree with you that 'desirable' is too subjective a word to use in this context so I've removed it. Londonarchitect (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, i have lived/live in Teddington, and yes, it has trees... well done — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.204.129 (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to right a sub-section on the two main shopping streets of Teddington would I be allowed to write the names of the shops or are there rules against that?Thebaronoflondon 18:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any rules necessarily forbids that, but I also don't see that there's much point. Unfortunately -- sorry, that's PoV; if you prefer, "fortunately" -- (i) Teddington is much like other suburbs; (ii) the chainization [?] of the British shopping street is advanced. There's Andrews the most unusual camera shop, there are some good restaurants, there may well be one or two other remarkable places that I can't think of offhand, and, well, there are lots of shops that are the same as they are anywhere else. What were you thinking of adding? -- Hoary 23:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just thinking of writing a small paragraph on the two main shopping streets, the High Street and Broad Street. But luckily there are quite a few independent shops on these streets. The paragraph will probably be just slightly longer than the MP for Teddington (which I also wrote).? Thebaronoflondon 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The allegedly famous residents Charles Duncombe, Daragh Conor and Rufus Ferrabee are so famous that they're redlinked. Duncombe existed. Ferrabee only appears in commercial scrapes of Wikipedia; his article in Wikipedia was deleted. (I've read it; it looks like some schoolboy fantasy.) How about Conor? Without proof that he's notable, I'll soon delete mention of him. -- Hoary 01:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted mention of him. -- Hoary 11:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now deleted mention of him for at least the third time. Perhaps he's just some schoolboy joke. -- Hoary 02:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does any reason exist for the absence of Thomas Traherne in this list? If not, I will add him. The Angel of Islington

I suppose it's just that nobody thought of him until you did. He's certainly worth listing. -- Hoary 00:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Henderson was actually a co-inventor of the Goosay Engine (2 cylinder, side valve, single crank) and the design was significantly enhanced after he emigrated to South Africa in the late 1800's.

Correct. There used to be a plaque about Henderson on Udney Park Road but it disappeared when the big house was pulled down to make way for flats. 78.147.110.67

The infobox tells us that the MP is the MP for Twickenham. He has his own article. I don't see the point of summarizing it within this article too, and so I'm about to delete the section. -- Hoary 23:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Bring it back, please. If someone didn't know who the MP of Teddington was they would come to this page to find out.Thebaronoflondon 15:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's an infobox on the right. One section is clearly labeled "Politics". Under that is "UK Parliament". Next to that is "Twickenham". On clicking that you reach

Vincent Cable. Where's the difficulty? Or do you really want this information to be duplicated in the article about every suburb within the constituency (Hampton Hill, etc etc), each of which would need updating on the event of the retirement, death, electoral defeat, etc., of Cable? -- Hoary 00:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

In a spirit of openness I have decided to remove all references to Teddington being 'leafy, green and highly desirable'. (this unsigned post was by 87.114.159.105)

Thanks a lot Alexllew 21:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Both in a spirit of openness and following Wikipedia policy old discussions on article talk pages are retained. Yes, discussions that are later regretted are retained too. (When a discussion becomes old, it can be archived.) -- Hoary 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been restored two more times since the initial blanking - as Hoary indicates, discussion on article talk pages is retained until the entire talk page is archived to facilitate discussion and reduce clutter (but at which point, old discussions are still viewable on archive pages). This is extremely important to foster openness and allow editors to see what consensus has been reached on previous issues. Please don't continually blank the talk page - doing this repeatedly may be interpreted as vandalism. njan 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are of no use to anyone and simply demonstrate how only a few 'editors' control this page. Nothing more. They are worthless examples portraying the reactions of 'editors' when they don't go their way. So yes, in that case they are invaluable if you want to understand how this page is run. (the previous unsigned comment was by 87.114.142.209)

Please sign your posts, and again please stop doing stupid stuff just to spite people. This article can be freely edited by anyone and is not controlled by a few editors: things are only removed if they violate Wikipedia rules that's all. I'm sure you can appreciate that. Alexllew 17:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bit rude, but I can't be bothered to complain any more. I have lost the will to care. If you are not willing to face up to the fact that you are far too strict on what goes up on this article and if you are not willing to accept this, I can't help you. Several times many people have placed things on this page, all of them with a great depth of knowledge on the whole of the London region. Historians, scientists, all of them with a good knowledge of the area, greater than yours I'm sure, have tried to add sections and every time they have been taken down. Simply because they are newcomers and are not in the group of ‘editors’. It saddens me. ... comment added at 18:12, 1 June 2007 by 87.113.16.60

1. It wasn't rude at all.
2. I note that immediately after saying that you can't be bothered to complain, you complain. I'm heartened by this sign of continuing energy.
3. Wikipedia policies determine what can be placed in this or any other article. Those policies have to be interpreted and sometimes of course they're misinterpreted. Where's the beef with the interpretation? If on the other hand you reject the policies themselves, then in principle you can try to have them changed but in practice you won't succeed. Well, there are plenty of other opportunities for you to write about Teddington, for example your own website.
4. I'm amazed by your knowledge that certain editors are historians, scientists or whatever. Perhaps you know (via ESP or whatever) what I do for my paying job. I don't know what you do -- and neither do I much care what you do, what Alexllew does, what anyone does. What I do care is whether a contributing editor can provide information that's verifiable and that doesn't smack of advertising.
5. You can sign by hitting the tilde key four times in a row. -- Hoary 05:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, this is sad. They were only five words. You can't admit when you were wrong as you messed up and missed out on the opportunity to have some great people writing for you. Hoary it's poor. Please don't answer back, I am too busy. Goodbye. ... added at 09:34, 2 June 2007 by 87.113.70.100

I think we should keep "leafy" at least. It's mid November and very leafy. Can we keep "leafy"?? 89.240.228.101 —Preceding comment was added at 19:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK guys, don't go mad. I've added a very much enlarged history section, tell me what you think. I'm sure it can be improved and changed. I think some more should be added to the modern day bit, but I'm all conked out. Give it a chance. Thanks. Alexllew 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia must become a TRUE encyclopedia!!!

As of my last edit, the disgusting evidence of opinion and personal taste that was evident everywhere in this corrupt article that spoils the name of wikipedia has been purged, now we can rejoice. Wikipedia is becoming a harbour of pure fact, soon no intuition, personal thought, advancement or instinct will occur here, just pure logic and reason. This article contained null non-empirical facts. Enjoy fellow editors unite!

77.96.99.100 00:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your set of enthusiastic edits, IP, the article was considerably degraded. For example, from:

By the beginning of the Second World War by far the greatest source of employment was the NPL. Its main focus in the war was military research and its most famous invention was the "bouncing bomb".

(which of course needs sourcing but at least makes sense) to:

By the beginning of the Second World War greatest source of employment was the NPL. Its main focus in the war was military research and its most invention was the "bouncing bomb".

I therefore reverted the lot. -- Hoary 02:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need so many [citations]for so facts that no-one of worth is actually challenging? The dramatic language that IP 77.96.99.100 is using suggests this unregisterd user is simply trolling for some sort of reaction and that's what he's getting. Why not simply revert the article to before his changes? Waldopepper 12:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I did. And then I looked at it and decided that it had a pile of assertions that weren't substantiated in the article. It's likely that several are entirely uncontroversial and substantiated in one or other of several books about suburban London that are possessed by editors here. Fine, then let's add the references. I don't know what, if anything, the troll had in mind and am not interested in trolls' fantasies or incoherent ravings: assertions need evidence before anyone bothers to ask for this evidence in an intelligible fashion. -- Hoary 04:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do, in fact, agree with the 'troll' (please, think of better phrase it is so terrible). He, or she, is raising a valid point, which is that none of these claims were sourced whatsoever. So my message to you 'editors' is simple: pull your act together and get them sourced ASAP or before you know it you will have an army of 'trolls' on your hands.87.114.135.214 17:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Teddington called "an area of greater London" when it's just a town. Isn't it? Alexllew 16:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that a town is an urban area of middling size, surrounded by countryside. The Angel of Islington 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we perhaps say its a suburb of greater London? Alexllew (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any objection to that. The Angel of Islington (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed the following unreferenced, non-encyclopedic sub-section:

Among the many things Wikipedia is not, it is NOT a directory. A case might be made for including notable residents in a historical context i.e. dead and gone (but with Teddington being of major relevance in that person's life) - and obviously with corresponding reference. The fact that So-and-so lived - or at present lives - there is not noteworthy. Where do we put the limit: X lived there for over a year? Y was born there but moved when s/he was 3? --Technopat (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree. It is encyclopaedic and you should have asked here first before removing such a substantial section. Obviously someone has to have lived there for a significant period, though. See Eastbourne's section for a good way of organising it. Malick78 (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have a point, Technopat. But you've been a little extreme. I think it's OK to put this stuff in the article as long as (i) the individual people are bluelinked (redlinked or nonlinked members of bluelinked pop groups, etc, wouldn't qualify), (ii) there's no special pleading ("actor", yes, but not "celebrated actor"), (iii) each item is concise, (iv) the present tense is qualified with a year ("lives in Teddington" when?), (v) each item is referenced. (Incidentally, an article on Mowatt was zapped as the result of this AfD, and one on Ogilvy was deleted as a result of this one; such notability!) -- Hoary (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical figures (pre 20th cent) ought to be incorporated as text in the history. A list of people born there is acceptable. Transient actors, Bodkin Adams fan club cruft, visiting Italian bicuits, Two Ton Ted etc could well be omitted IMHO. Motmit (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Greetings Malick78, Hoary, Motmit and All, Best way of getting a reaction is to be bold :)

Malick78, basic Wikipedia guidelines say that unreferenced stuff gets thrown out - and where is the encyclopedic element in a list of notable residents (as in the particular list I deleted, but left here for further consultation)?

Hoary, bluelinks are not accepted as references at Wikipedia - imagine I slapped the bluelinked

And just for the record, the fact that other Wikipedia articles have a "Notable residents" section is not a justification... Looking forward to feedback, folks. --Technopat (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bluelinks are not accepted as references at Wikipedia: Well of course not. To say that a bluelink is necessary for addition is not to say that it's sufficient for addition. So even if somebody comes up with impeccable evidence for the claim that Mr and Mrs Mowatt lived (live) in Teddington, they don't get listed because they don't have their own articles (and perhaps also for other reasons too). -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts: I'm not much swayed by mere births or deaths. Have people lived in Teddington (or wherever) for an appreciable time? Also, I'm much more interested in the genuinely notable (and surprising), such as Herzen, than in minor TV slebs and the like. And as this is an encyclopedia rather than an extension of the Daily Mail, perhaps this article should be stricter on minor slebs than on the historically significant. -- Hoary (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Hoary - thanks for sorting out that background colour for the above. As you say, the article/Wikipedia in general "should be stricter on minor slebs than ...", but of course deciding who gets to go in which category will lead to much debate. The very famous drunkard above (not mentioning any names)? Herzen who was only there for a few months, etc.?

At Malick78's suggestion I popped in to have a butcher's at the Eastbourne solution, and at first glance it did look more viable, but by chance happened to notice that the columns referring to dates - which one would naturally assume to refer to the dates corresponding to the time someone lived there - actually refer to the lifespan of the person in question and have nothing to do with the time they spent/lived there.

In other words, the so-called encyclopedic information is giving a false impression that a person lived in Eastbourne all his/her life. The bottom line must be something along th elines of "Was Teddington/Eastbourne directly influential in the work of X" and/or "Did X exercise a direct and notable whatever on Teddington/Eastbourne". So an artist (notable) who lived all his/her life - or a substantial part of it - in a certain place and left a record of that experience must undoubtedly be included (with corresponding reference), but as Motmit mentioned, in the body of the text.

Wikipedia appears to be fighting a losing battle against "Trivia" sections, and the "Notable residents" section is not much different. --Technopat (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was assuming references being needed was a given:) As for 'notable residents' being like 'trivia' - hey, a town is a collection of inhabitants. Notable inhabitants is therefore anything but trivia. Malick78 (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable inhabitants should be incorporated into the body of the text. The list in this article makes no mention of two highly notable residents who undoubtedly influenced a major sociological - and therefore economic influence on the town -

William IV of the United Kingdom and his Queen Consort, Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, who lived at Bushy House

, which of course it should, but includes a willy-nilly, highly POV selection of names of actors, soccer players who happened to have been born there or stayed there for a while, etc.

My kick is that if it's worth including in the article, it goes in context. If not, not :) Likewise, if suitable referenced, there's no reason why place of residence can't be mentioned at the corresponding article for that person and then we draw up a stand-alone separate List of residents in Teddington, England by genre, i.e. sportspeople, entertainment, scientists, and, given the weight given in this article to the number of churches, clergy. All duly referenced... :)

Teddington does have a large number of famous people associated with its bijou residences, as do many other suburban areas of London (let's not stray too far off-topic), but given the wide-ranging implications of selection criteria, an encyclopaedia article should not, IMHO, list 'em all. --Technopat (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the so-called encyclopedic information is giving a false impression that a person lived in Eastbourne all his/her life. It doesn't give that impression to me. ¶ The bottom line must be something along th elines of "Was Teddington/Eastbourne directly influential in the work of X" and/or "Did X exercise a direct and notable whatever on Teddington/Eastbourne". This seems extraordinarily restrictive. It doesn't seem to have been a factor in the Eastbourne article, which I'll agree does do this rather well. ¶ So what blue plaques are there in Teddington? (I'm a long way away from it and can't check.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a

Blue Plaque residents section would be far better suited to an encyclopedic article. But I think you'll find it (BP) is probably rather more exclusive than the lists currently cropping up all over Wikipedia :) Likewise, which criteria would be followed? The British Heritage or some local PR and/or estate agency's published list? --Technopat (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That of "English Heritage" plus any other non-commercial organization of note. (What other organization puts these things up in Teddington?) -- Hoary (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Sorry! Meant to write English Heritage but my politically correct subconcious got the better of me. The main criteria that most appeals to me re. this issue is, of course, the following:

In order to be eligible for an English Heritage blue plaque, a figure must have been dead for twenty years or have passed the centenary of their birth.

--Technopat (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do recall seeing a plaque (it might not have been blue) on Noel Coward's house 77.102.33.169 (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no towpath in Teddington. The towpath is on the other side of the river at Ham. The linked article is therefore probably misnamed, and if the murders took place in Ham, they don't belong in the Teddington article. Comments? Motmit (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the

Teddington towpath murders page: "The girls had been on a bicycle trip on Sunday, 31 May 1953, and were seen cycling along a towpath beside the Thames River in Teddington about 11am". It would, therefore, seem that there was a towpath along the Thames in Teddington in 1953.Catiline63 (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Well that article must be incorrect. There was no towpath on the river bank on the Teddington side in 1953 any more than there is now. Motmit (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you a reliable source for that statement? Personal memory is not enough. A quick Google search shows that both of the victims and the murderer were from Teddington. The FOI request, which I added yesterday to the TTM site, explicitly calls the killings the "'Towpath Murders'" and gives "Teddington Lock" as the location. Regardless of where the fatal blows may 'actually' have been dealt, it's Teddington which is associated with them. Moreover, what do you suggest as the alternative? Catiline63 (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: The FOI source refers to "Teddington Lock" and "Towpath Murders" - no mention of "Teddington Towpath Murders" is made. If the murders took place along the towpath, this can only refer to the Ham side of the Thames, as there is no towpath along the Teddington side of the river. The fact seems to be that careless journalism may have incorrectly referred to a "towpath in Teddington" as opposed to "towpath [along the river] near Teddington Lock". --Technopat (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the editors who revert my edits lives in Hampshire and another proclaims that he, or she, is against the censorship of Wikipedia. Hence, the first is ignorant of the area he attempts to edit information on and the other is a hypocrite who is willing to suppress a widely-held opinion.

As an individual I have every right to edit this page as I provide an accurate and fair portrayal of the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.113.141 (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has any "right" to edit this page without adapting to consensus, and meeting with Wikipedia's policies. In order to present a

neutral point of view we have to be very careful with descriptive phrases. So far no-one else has agreed with your edits, which is a good indication you are editing against the consensus of what is appropriate. David Underdown (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I am almost blind, but I feel that the red spot labeled Teddington in the map is on the south bank. pietro79.54.62.180 (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC) the problem is that the deep blue lines seem waterways, the river disappears below the black boundaries of the borough and the enlarged map does not mark teddington. thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.54.62.180 (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging George teddington about his series of edits: George, you do realize that this is an encyclopedia article? Like any other London suburb (or if you prefer, "suburban enclave"), Teddington may well have estate agents keen to attract the free-spending children of Russian, American, Azeri, or other despots/plutocrats; but Wikipedia isn't the place for such advertising.

If I'm missing something and you instead consider your edits as adding neutral, informative material towards an encyclopedic end, please comment here so that I'll understand properly. Thanks! -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Puffery -- or should I say, what looks to me like puffery -- has been added to this article repeatedly and over a long time. Here's an example from over a decade ago. (And as the history will show, the IP was most insistent on its reintroduction. See also "Leafy, green and highly desirable", above.) Headhitter, you seem to be a level-headed specialist in southwest London: In your judgement, is this article more than averagely affected by puffery? Or am I perhaps deluded -- is this not puffery at all but instead a neutral description of what happens to be a leafy, attractive, and hugely affluent suburban enclave? -- Hoary (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sense that David Biddulph agrees with me. -- Hoary (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the accolade and for alerting me, Hoary. I think you're right about the puffery. I've removed quite a lot of it but there's still a way to go. Incidentally, Teddington may well be affluent but the article, as currently written, doesn't back up this claim. Headhitter (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]