Talk:Colworth House

	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.

Bedfordshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bedfordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bedfordshire 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.BedfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject BedfordshireTemplate:WikiProject BedfordshireBedfordshire articles
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).

Colworth a village?[edit]

I read in a local magazine that colworth was once a village or at least a parish. Seeing as how colworth redirects here i feel it odd that the article does not mention this Eopsid (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a similiar map to the one i recall from that local magazine on the internet here is a link it shows Colworth was at one time its own parish albeit a very small one. Eopsid (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate material[edit]

I've marked the bulk of this article as inappropriate in tone for Wikipedia. In my opinion it's also presenting only one side of an argument (POV) and in any case is not encyclopaedic in nature. If any of this material is to be retained it needs to be incorporated into the article in proper Wikipedia style. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than remove one side - how about adding the other?--GazMan7 (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have two problems with this idea. First, a Wikipedia article is not the right place for speculative arguments, these matters should be discussed here on the Talk page and then the consensus view should go into the article. And secondly, I work for Unilever at Colworth House so I'm reluctant to get involved.

I do have a suggestion to make, however. Maybe someone who is not involved might move the inappropriate material into the talk page and it could be discussed properly here. Meanwhile I've incorporated the parts that seem to me most useful into the article proper rather than just leave them 'hanging' at the bottom of the page. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the following content from the main article, so it can be discussed, and its credibility confirmed, here:

The group intends to increase the number of staff on site from 825 to 1500 by 2010. [1], [2]

The long term target, according to Dr Jim Darwent, vice-president of Colworth Park, is to increase the headcount on site to 3000 people. [3]

This is generally understood to refer to the construction of an A6 Link Road, to relieve the traffic pressure on the village of Sharnbrook [unverified].

strong, well-researched [conjecture]

concluded that there was every likelihood that the Goodman-provided estimates of extra traffic resulting from the application were likely to be exceeded by a considerable margin, greatly exacerbating Sharnbrook's existing traffic problems [contains false information]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambrook (talk • contribs) 11:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article remains unbalanced and inappropriate in tone for Wikipedia. Much of the content in not encyclopaedic. I have already declared my interest as an employee of Unilever at Colworth House and although I'm now retired I feel that it would go against Wikipedia guidelines for me to edit the article again.

My objection to the content is not that it is incorrect, but that it is inappropriate. The article in its present state contains less about Colworth House itself than it does about public and local political discussions concerning traffic levels in the village of Sharnbrook. There has been no significant change in the article for more than two years. I am therefore going to request independent editorial advice. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the material. The development still has not happened, though they seem to have planning approval, and the discussion of traffic issues is out of date. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable data[edit]

The items that have been removed for discussion that have valid links are fully verifiable - click on them, it's pretty obvious. They should be returned to the main body of the article.Tankertop (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colworth House. 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/20140506015138/http://www.biochemistry.org/awards/thecolworthmedal.aspx to http://www.biochemistry.org/Awards/TheColworthMedal.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: 18 January 2022).

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) 02:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]