Talk:Woodcote Park

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Surrey C‑class Low‑importance

	Surrey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey 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.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture: Historic houses Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Low-importance).

History[edit]

This dispute has been resolved. See the discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (permanent link), the discussion at Talk:Epsom, and the reconciliation at User talk:SchroCat. When improving this article, consideration should be made to replace the eehe.org.uk source with a more reliable one. Polyamorph (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

More extensive history is detailed here: https://web.archive.org/web/20230408071350/https://eehe.org.uk/?p=29903 Polyamorph (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shame it's not a reliable source, and you seem to have based quite a lot of the article on it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Nick Moyes: please don't follow me if you can't be civil.~~Polyamorph (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have pinged the wrong person. Firstly, I have not followed you (I’ve edited this page a while ago and it’s been on my watchlist since I worked the Epsom Riot article); secondly, there is nothing uncivil in what I have written: saying that you have used an unreliable source in your expansion of the article isn’t uncivil. - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged Nick Moyes ~~because you've followed me here~~ and he is aware of the situation. Polyamorph (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not "followed you here". As I have already explained, this article (which I have edited before) is on my watchlist and has been so for at least the last three years. Please don't accuse me of things I have not done. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We were in dispute. That was resolved. I started editing this page substantially and you have decided to undo some of my edits, relating to our earlier dispute, and complain about my sourcing. That is not conducive to a friendly and collaborative environment ~~and I frankly consider this harassment. Please stop.~~ Polyamorph (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harassment. For the third time, this has been on my watchlist for several years. I suggest you stop accusing me of breaching the WP:HARRASSMENT policy. If you honestly think that's the case, take it to ANI. At the moment you are unsubstantiated and uncivil accusations. The only thing I have reverted of yours relates to the name of the place, and that's with good reason. At the moment you use the name without any context about what it is and where or when it was introduced, and that's not great. Readers are going to wonder what the name refers to as it hasn't been introduced or referred to before you drop it in without explanation.

As to the sourcing, you are using an unreliable source. Sorry you don't like hearing that, but I suggest you read WP:RELIABLESOURCE.

I will step away from this article for a week or so, but both the naming problem and the souring will need to be addressed in the interim. - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an unreliable source, it is an online resource published by history experts at Bourne Hall, a library in Ewell. They do their best to ensure high accuracy of content and have access to a vast archive.

Regarding the name, the timeline is not entirely clear as to when any "renaming" took place - its not possible to say exactly when it was renamed. If my prose is clumsy, that can be addressed, but I am not comfortable saying it was renamed if at that stage in history it was actually still only a small section of the main camp.

I'll assume good faith and withdraw my harassment accusations, with apologies. Please try to collaborate constructively in the future, ask here for clarification before making unilateral changes, as I have thought carefully about the prose as it is written (not saying it is remotely perfect).Polyamorph (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s unreliable. It’s a volunteer’s local history society, which is the equivalent to a fan site. It doesn’t pass WP:UGC. And when I return in a week or so, I will continue to make WP:BOLD edits, not ask anyone’s permission beforehand, and that includes correcting the errors that are in the article, including relating to the name of the hospital and unreliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.