Talk:Gatton, Surrey

Gatton "was a village"... oh dear, that's not good.

Gatton remains a settlement, the question surely is if Gatton meets separate WP:Notability in accordance with WP:UKVILLAGES or needs merger?

For keeping rather than merging On first glace Gatton meets the standard definition of an English village: a small community with a church. Its civil parish was it seems abolished, however that is not a requirement to have a settlement, nor a village, for example Burpham, Surrey, or in terms of scale: Crowhurst, Surrey. Unfortunately whoever designed the postcode map, see [1] and type RH1 then RH2, split the ecclesiastical parish to put the outcrop around Battlebridge Lane and the very lowest portion of Gatton Park, East Lodge Farm and the Serpentine lake into Redhill rather than Reigate, so while almost all homes are in the RH2 Reigate post-town choosing whether to merge with Redhill (RH1) or Reigate (RH2) is a little bit Controversial.

For merging A tongue of the parish ran southwards, south of Merstham to the boundary of Nutfield, but was added to Merstham in 1899.

All that remains is shown by the church. i.e. Gatton's Ecclesiastical Parish - Click on Find Us for the map. Buildings: Lots of central park school/parkkeeper buildings; a cluster of about eight houses part of that old park; Upper Gatton Farm, Crossways Farm, Old Trees and Olde Forge (all High Road); 22-24 Wray Lane; the first three industrial units in Wallis Place. All that remains of the church services is use as a school chapel, with no public worship encouraged and the benefice is dominated by being joined with Merstham that has all the regular services.

References

Overall I'm tending towards a merger with Reigate under Localities. Please indent your comments to start with a : below. Adam37 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I would support merging with either Gatton Park or Gatton (UK Parliament constituency). I feel that these two articles are better placed to absorb the small amount of non-duplicate information that is contained here; merging with a nearby settlement would cause the information to look out of place. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I firmly support keeping as is. Wikipedia deals with historic notability as well as current notability. Gatton was a Domesday manor; an ancient ecclesiastical parish; and in the later middle ages achieved some kind of borough status, sufficient to give it parliamentary representation. All that to my mind makes it clearly notable and meriting its own article (distinct from the parliamentary constituency article). The article may only be a stub at present, and hard evidence for the settlement's history may be thin on the ground, but if the VCH can find over 4000 words to write the article undoubtedly has the potential to be filled out further.

Can I also suggest that you flag up this discussion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Surrey talk page. GrindtXX (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Am similarly in favour of keeping it as it is. I started the Gatton Park article way back in 2007 so am perhaps complicit in any duplication; however, I am of the view that the village's historical reference points (Domesday, parliamentary constituency, manorial links) warrant its own article. To merge it with another settlement dilutes this notability. While the village of Gatton is something of an anachronism now, it plainly has a past. Like many articles on WP, if it were expanded (which appears quite possible given what has been done with equivalent English settlements) these sorts of notability/merger issues would not arise. Dick G (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I am pleased to have two users totally agreed, and would normally think that we have a consensus, but in fact this issue is still divided as I am not satisfied that a redirect to Gatton Park or Gatton (UK Parliament constituency) per Mrmatiko would do any harm. Perhaps we should just accept that some depopulated villages lose their notability?Adam37 (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

While I'm willing to support a merge, I also don't have an issue with keeping the article as it is. Notability isn't something that changes, if a topic is actually notable then it will always be notable, and the status quo seems to be that settlements with people living in them are automatically assumed to be notable. Whether notability is enough to avoid a merger is open to debate, but I'm willing to go with either option. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

From the above it appears a consensus is emerging, however I would be interested to have other users' input after they also have read WP:UKVILLAGES. If kept I would want there to be inserted "and is a small locality", since if you live in the former park to the southeast in Reigate as some do then it is true to say that they live in Gatton, Reigate. However the only quibble with this is that "settlements with people living in them are automatically assumed to be notable" is false, for instance any suburb of a town does not merit its own article, its history, politics and geography are born out of and identical to its town; they go under a paragraph in the main article itself. I mean take Stoke, Guildford for example, it would be absurd to put that as a separate article, per the policy above. This means that Reigate could easily have the same treatment under Reigate and a clear link to Gatton Park and to the historic MP's borough within such a subsection. I am sure the residents of Wray Lane would have no qualms to this, just as no article on Wray Common itself should ever be created per the policy. Otherwise we would have one on every town 'pocket' which would do no favours to wider understanding of matters such as history, politics and industry and compartmentalise everywhere to the nth degree. That would be estate agents' seventh heaven and heaven knows who else's. Adam37 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm pleased consensus is tending towards keeping, and just want to add a few points to my earlier comments. First, Adam37's arguments for merging have focused on Gatton's dwindling claims to be a physical village and settlement; my (and others') arguments for keeping focus on its historic status as an ancient parish and medieval borough. An ancient parish is something that is fairly clearly defined: there were about 140 in Surrey, and I'm willing to bet they virtually all have their own Wikipedia articles. Boroughs were a much more select group: Beresford and Finberg, English Medieval Boroughs (1973, plus a supplement of 1981), list just 10 in Surrey, including Gatton. The only one that doesn't have its own article is Eashing, an Anglo-Saxon burh – though admittedly the remaining 8 have all survived as fairly substantial settlements. It's on those historical grounds that Gatton appears in numerous printed and online gazetteers etc – for example, A Vision of Britain through Time, or the Online Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs in England Wales to 1516. The point I'm making is that, although the village was never large, it did have a certain administrative and social significance, and it just seems perverse to bury its history in an article on a different topic.

On another tack, I've just discovered that there is in fact an entire Wikipedia category for Deserted medieval villages in England (I don't know how to make that appear as a link), with four county subcategories, containing in all well over 60 articles on specific places. Admittedly there are a few examples there of deserted villages discussed within articles on larger surviving settlements, but as far as I can see those were all hamlets, never parishes in their own right. Have a look at, e.g., Babingley, Norfolk, or Lancaut, Glos., for examples of how a quite substantial and respectable article can be written about a lost settlement. If nothing else, I suggest the first thing we do once this discussion closes is to add Gatton to that category! GrindtXX (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

GrindtXX's research is watertight and supports a new policy, as there is none, of How to Write about deserted medieval villages. I therefore accept after all keeping. For the additional policy in UK settlements: (I will add this to the Talk page) The first question should be did they have their own ecclesiastical parish (if just a large hamlet then please put under their civil parish/town of today). If they had a parish, then on a case-by-case basis identify whether a new name for a city/town/village is focussed so close to its centre and absorbing almost all of it that it is right to include it as a mention under the area's history and create a Redirect for the medieval parish. If users estimate it is a stand-alone sui juris old village and there is sufficient material to make a Good Article then the Deserted Village can have its own article. (E.g. Gatton) The category Deserted medieval villages in England should begin to group together these; well found. Adam37 (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very happy both with the decision to keep, and with the general principles of the policy; and also with the excellent start you've made on expanding the stub. I have one or two further comments on the policy, which I'll now add to the new discussion on the settlements Talk page. GrindtXX (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

An excellent example of the way these kinds of discussions should go! Well done to all concerned, a great solution Dick G (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Just y thoughts, but I'm in favour of keeping it as well, it would most likely past the notability test due to lots of historical references etc, and I'm sure it could be easily expanded with a little effort. Thanks Glanis^Talk 11:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gatton, Surrey. 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/20120424060625/http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/mapsearch.aspx to http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/mapsearch.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002010627/http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/geodiversity/englands/counties/area_ID34.aspx to http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/geodiversity/englands/counties/area_ID34.aspx

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) 13:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)