Talk:Leamington Spa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled][edit]

Shouldn't this really be moved to Leamington Spa, seem as that is the most common name for the town, and few people refer to it in its full "Royal Leamington Spa" title. And most of the links to the town are to Leamington Spa G-Man 12:31, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

When I lived in Kenilworth, we used to call it "Lem" and I would say most people call it "Leamington" rather than "Leamington Spa".. not sure which is most natural to use! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:20, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The official name of the town is "Royal Leamington Spa" the Royal element isn't a title but is largely ignored. Use of just "Leamington" should be avoided as this could cause confusion with Leamington Hastings also in Warwickshire.barrettyman 11:06 21 Dec 2005
Hmm. I believe that Leamington Spa is an area within the town of Royal Leamington Spa - Sydenham being another. I'm not sure, though.
James F. (talk) 18:36, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
No, Leamington Spa and Royal Leamington Spa are one and the same. There are several sub-areas of the town though. Sydenham is one, New Milverton another and the former village of Lillington is a third. As for Leam being an abbreviation for the town, I lived in Whitnash for over 10 years and definetly heard it referred to as that. David Newton 08:38, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Right; are all three (Sydenham, New Milverton, and Lillington) former hamlets/villages/towns, or just Lillington? If the latter, where do the other two names come from?
James F. (talk) 09:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No. Syndenham, as far as I know is just the name of a relatively modern area. If you want to find Syndenham on a map of Leamington, it's the southeast part of the town. New Milverton, on the other hand, does come from a village name. However, Old Milverton is still a separate village to the north of Leamington. New Milverton is the northwest part of Leamington. David Newton 20:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Re: Is it called Leam? We have one student at Warwick saying it is and one resident saying it isn't. I lived in Kenilworth for 20 years and feel qualified to weigh in too. The town is called Leam in a slangy colloquial way - by young people at least - not just Warwick students. It is obviously never called Leam in a formal context. My proposed solution - keep the reference, but de-emphasize it by removing it from the top line. I'll do that now - please comment here rather than in edit summaries. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:10, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

oh hadn't noticed that bit about "professorial extravagance" before - how much do you think professors make??? :-) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:13, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Bugger-all, really. Well, the DCS ones make enough to get an Apple PowerBook each (grumble grumble ;-)), and one's a self-made millionaire who was too busy with running his company to mark our coursework, but... :-)
James F. (talk) 16:32, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I believe the bottom of the professor scale is about £45-50K - certainly more than most students take home :-) Junior academics don't earn much really, but once you're on the professor scale there's no top limit...
I agree with the current way of putting in the "leam" - i should have thought of that. No point starting an edit war over this place ;-)
Iridium77 17:00, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The naming issue was brought up a year ago but discussion moved on to other matters. As was the case then, most Wikipedia links point to Leamington Spa. I have been bold and moved the article there. I have always understood the Royal bit as a kind of title, not an integral part of the name. Having said that I suppose Spa could be regarded as a kind of title, but it is invariably included, except in a local context, when everyone calls it Leamington. It's Royal Leamington Spa on signs when entering the town, and in some tourism/showing-off contexts (although even this semi-official website has Royal written differently, as if it were a title). The local newspaper has "Leamington Spa Courier" at the top of its front page, and finally, the Google test gives 463,000 matches for "Leamington Spa", 74,600 for "Royal Leamington Spa", and 340,000 for "Leamington Spa" when excluding the word "royal". — Trilobite (Talk) 10:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That seems fair enough to me - the post town is "Leamington Spa" Iridium77 15:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sugar[edit]

"Sugar is the club of choice" - by who's choice? This isn't backed up by anything.

Been re-worded. Cls14 21:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Campion Hills[edit]

What evidence is there that Campion Hills is a suburb of Leamington? I've never heard of them as such. Cls14 21:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Undrinkable" water?[edit]

What is the source of the water from the new drinking fountain on the pavement in front of the Pump Rooms? I had some from there recently, and while it was nowhere near undrinkable, it did have a rather unpleasant taste at first, almost as though it was salty. 86.143.54.66 01:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Most populous town in South Warwickshire"[edit]

What about Rugby? KingStrato 19:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links section[edit]

This section seems to be in danger of becoming the largest part of the article. I suggest that someone takes the time to look through WP:EL: Leamington Lemmings Ultimate Frisbee Team, Leamington Spa Chat Forum, The Kingsley School ... the section is very little more than a link farm. Which wikipedia is not supposed to be. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leam[edit]

Would be interesting to know (through IPA) how locals say this. Is it /lɛm/ or /lim/?

/lɛm/ -- which you could guess from the IPA of Leamington. I've added IPA to the river's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukslim (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the students I know refer to Leamington as "Leam" (pronounced as in the LEM in lemon. I personally can't stand it, it just sounds tacky. Jackacon (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I was born in Leamington, and 'Leam' is horrible. It's an accurate statement though - lots of locals used to call it that too when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s. I wonder if anyone has a citation for this though? PondBob (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cubbington[edit]

On this page it says:

Cubbington - 3 km (2 miles) northeast (a large village which has become a northern suburb)

However, on the Cubbington page it says:

It is often (though incorrectly) regarded as a northern suburb of Leamington, being situated only 5 km from the town centre.

Obviously these can't BOTH be right. Which one is?

-- Elin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.91.118 (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The problem is with the definition of "suburb" - Cubbington isn't part of Leamington (like Whitnash isn't), it is a separate village (as was Lillington, as is Whitnash etc etc) ok. easy. BUT if you check the definition of suburb, that is not (depending on which definition you take) an issue. Does that clear it up? Widefox (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the Cubbington article to say 3 km, and I fixed the Leamington article to remove the incorrect notion that New Cubbington is a part of Leamington - it is a part of Cubbington (and Cubbington is not a part of Leamington). Widefox (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Polish[edit]

I've added a link to the Polish language wikipedia article [1] . I'd like to see the Polish article on the Polish wikipedia grow - please add links to Polish language sites there. Widefox (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aleister Crowley[edit]

Several websites show his bithplace as 30 Clarendon Sq., not 36 as it is in this article. Anyone know for sure - have the council put a plaque on the birthplace of their most famous son?

edit: having visited this dull town just the other day I can confirm that there is no plaque on either house. Pity, as it is by far the most interesting thing about this town.

86.128.98.127 (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)sdrawkcab[reply]

Self promotion[edit]

Please will people who know Leamington Spa check
“Leamington Spa offers a great variety of shops from the more common high street stores to the independent retailer. The main shopping centre is called the Royal Priors [2]. It is situated between picturesque Park Street which is known as a destination for high-end independent boutiques.”
I removed blatant self promotion. The author has been warned repeatedly. Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just slimmed down the text for a music venue in Leamington. Widefox (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the same authors self promotion, and warned again. Widefox (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merged into this article Lansdowne Crescent, Leamington Spa[edit]

Article merged: See old talk-page here Widefox (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merged into this article Sydenham, Warwickshire[edit]

Widefox (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going out of fashion[edit]

The article states probably in good faith, "In the mid-19th century, spa resorts went out of fashion..." However, I'm not so sure that this is quite so accurate, as this is exactly the time when Malvern, Worcestershire (not so far away) began its heyday as a spa town thanks to its Malvern Water, and went on to become a prosperous locality - and still is, though the water cure is of course no longer popular. The dates are well documented. I've added a tag, not as a criticism, but as a flagging for some further information. --Kudpung (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I've pruned this. (WP:EL) There are now not enough to justify sub sections. Feel free to revert if strongly disagree, but many of them could, or have been used as inline references to information in the text - which then do not need duplicating in an External Links section. Some of them do not appear to have suffiecient importance to be listed.--Kudpung (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the community centres. Feel free to delete the newspaper links. Widefox (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up and copyedited[edit]

The article has undergone a significant overhaul, section by section, to introduce an encyclopedic prose style, remove any POV,weasel words, irrelevant items, unsubstantiated claims, and remove redundant material. Leamington is an important town and the effort now is to maintain the quality of the article to reflect this. Any new additions should closely conform to the Manual of Style, especially in the way references are used and displayed (a random check has found at least one reference to be inaccurate; it may be out of date, and others should be verified for accuracy. The article is now approaching B class and any major changes should preferably not now be made without discussion on this talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that there is wiki guideline that recommends that major changes gain prior consensus on the talk page, but also there is a wiki guideline to be bold in editing. I think that if someone can improve the page with any number of minor or moderate sized edits then they should be permitted to without any constraints in having to discus it first. Even when the article is GA or FA then editors are at liberty to make edits without prior discussion, if they think they can improve the page. Snowman (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

royal leamington spa os not known by leam by the locals the only thing called leam in leamington i leamington brakes football club :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.143.101 (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics[edit]

I'd like to suggest some information on demographics. The People section could use some additional information. I went to the 2001 census info, the external links. Information such as males/females/households is all I could find. What are the cultural, ethnic, racial make up of this area or surround? Languages? Age groups? commuter population, locally employed, any additional poulous detail.I cannot find this information. These data types are helpful to obtain a vantage point of a community from another community, and another country. Thankyou18:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)ipster11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipster11 (talk • contribs)

Sources[edit]

The article is still jn serious need of referenced sources. If they cannot be found, the tagged items may have to be removed. --Kudpung (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the article contain a list sources relating to the game companies based in Leamington Spa? Here is a suggestion of links:

Blitz Games: http://www.blitzgames.com/ FreeStyleGames: http://www.freestylegames.com/ Owned by Activision. Supersonic Software: http://www.supersonic-software.com/ Playground Games: http://www.playground-games.com/ Big Big studios: http://www.bigbigstudios.com/ Owned by Sony. Stick Man Studios: http://www.stickmanstudios.co.uk DNA Studios: www.dnadpk.com/dna-studios/ Fish in a bottle: http://www.fishinabottle.com/ In Holly Walk RedChain Games : http://www.redchaingames.com/ 2P Games: http://www.twopgames.com/ Monster and Monster: http://www.monsterandmonster.com/home.html Kwalee: http://kwalee.com/ Smartphone app startup.

There are also several game companies around Leamington that are part of the cluster, dipping into the same local ecosystem: Codemasters: http://www.facebook.com/codemasters The biggest local games employer. Out in the countryside on the way to Southam. Full Fat games: http://www.full-fat.com/ Was in Leamington but moved to Coventry to get subsidies. Lightning Fish games: http://www.lightningfishgames.com/ In Banbury which might be stretching it. But have strong Leamington connections (Petsakas (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Simple answer - no. See WP:NOTDIR. WIkipedia is not a directory. It does not need to have an article on absolutely everything because it isn't a directory. In the case of a town, it doesn't need to have every single business in the town listed because it isn't a directory. If a company is notable then write an article about it first, and then add a link to that article (together with suitable prose and a reference) within the main article. Otherwise the list above has no place on Wikipedia. --Bob Re-born (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite query[edit]

Why is there a citation needed after the sports section at the very bottom? Does it relate just to the Ultimate team? if so what is required as citation? The club has been going for about 4 years. Gav Newman (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are to support the text and are provided by reliable third party sources, such as the BBC. See WP:Cite and WP:RS for further details. I guess the cite tag was added because someone was querying the addition of the Ultimate team, but the whole section needs cites adding. Keith D (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick is not Leamington[edit]

Education section - please stop repeatedly adding schools situated in Warwick! These schools are all correctly listed at Warwick#Education , so let me be clear Do not add these to this article: Warwick School, The King's High School For Girls, Myton School and Aylesford School. Widefox (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added schools too which Leamington is in the priority area of. Twopenneth (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kudpung has removed the name of the specific school referenced and implied to me on my talkpage that it isn't factual, and asked me not to add it again). Could we have an explanation here of the logic behind the removal, and the reasons for not adding it, and all the other similar schools please. Twopenneth (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the comments by Widefox above. If you wish for a broader participation in the discussion, you might try WT:WPSCH. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Widefox's comments. They don't give any reason for not adding schools outside of Leamington, but which Leamington is in the catchment area of. This isn't a point about schools, but about what is relevant and valid to add to an article about Leamington. I'd say that listing the schools which Leamington is in the catchment areas of is perfectly valid. If we say they're out of the scope because they are located outside the town boundary, then we'd have to exclude mention of other "facilities" outside of the boundary such as the M40, Birmingham Airport, etc. If a school is provided specifically for children of the town to use, then I think that it needs to be included in the article. Where's the consensus to keep it out? Twopenneth (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found the solution now. I've added sub-sections: one for the schools in the town and one for the schools used by the town. The best of both worlds. Twopenneth (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article content[edit]

[Copied here from User talk:Twopenneth because it's about this article]

The correct place to mention the priority area of Myton School is in its article. All articles in the area should not list that they are in the area of various unrelated topics - that way is totally 100% incorrect. Sorry, that is the logic of wikipedia that articles should be about their topic. I hope this clarifies that things not in Leamington should not be listed as such. Due to the proximity of Myton to the Leamington border, this issue significantly adds to confusion, so is especially NOT helpful. Widefox (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is about Leamington Spa. It contains a diverse range of information about the town. I added information about which schools have Leamington in their catchment area - that is entirely relevant. If, as you seem to be insisting, that information only belongs in the article about the school itself, would you apply that same logic to the inclusion here about Birmingham Airport? Should all references to Birmingham Airport be removed from other articles, and a section added to the Birmingham Airport article listing all the cities, towns, villages and hamlets in its catchment area? I think that you are wrong on this one. Twopenneth (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Leamington had an airport your analogy might be valid whether to list outside airports, and I would so no to listing them too. The problem is that you want to list Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted. These are all airports used by people in Leamington. Maybe it would be handy to list them all, but it is overemphasis. Wikipedia should not be a userguide for school selection, or airport selection. We should be factual about which schools are in which towns. Anything else is nice, if it isn't overemphasis. My opinion is that it is. Why just schools - you would open the floodgates to so many overlapping articles. Widefox (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(merge from edit conflict)
The reason is clear - the topic of the article. Leamington is in the area for many other articles but none of them should be listed in Leamington, especially when this confuses the location of the school. The subsections are both ugly and redundant - with schools listed in both. If the heading size could at least be made simpler then they might be worthy of keeping. I still do not like that at all, and further to my comment on talk, these issues are pertinent to the schools, and should be listed on the schools articles. Agree WT:WPSCH is the place. The real problem here is an overemphasis on schools in the article. If the topic of schools in the area is notable it should have its own article, just like the "metropoloitan area of Leamington and Warwick" that I also deleted. Where is the limit? should grammar schools in Coventry be listed too?! Widefox (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Myton School specifically mentions Leamington - does Birmingham Airport? I don't want to add Gatwick, but if it was reserved primarily for the use of Leamingtonians I might, would you argue that even then it shouldn't be mentioned? If there is a Coventry school which lists Leamington as within its priority area then of course we should mention it. What I added is factual and yes, we could streamline the sections a little - but this article shouldn't be a directory of establishments located in Leamington, but an article about Leamington, including the schools provided for it. Twopenneth (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been an ongoing issue with this article due to the proximity of Leamington and Warwick. I have removed these duplicated sections in the two articles, and added about cross-links between to help. Note WP is not a guide for schooling. Please gain consensus before re-adding schools outside of each topic (Leamington and Warwick). You may want to take up discussion as suggested above. Widefox (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just restored it, you didn't mention why you'd removed it in the edit summary, so I assumed as we hadn't finished this discussion yet, that it was an error. By all means streamline it, but don't delete whilst the discussion is ongoing, and wait to see what the consensus is. Twopenneth (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I mentioned correctly in my edit summary (and verbosely here) about the reasoning given here (and in my edit on Warwick), please gain consensus here before adding schools outside of the articles. You are editing outside of consensus here, and directly in defiance of the html warning not to do so specifically about this issue. Please refrain now. Your inclusions have not gained consensus here, and you are engaging in edit warring. What did you not like about the cross links? Widefox (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't mention in the edit summary that you removed content from the education section. The schools are within the article scope - consensus is needed, and a strong justification, to exclude factually accurate and related information. What is the authority of the html warning, and what is the process for creating such warnings, and who is empwered to enforce them? Surely it takes at least two to war - are you admitting to being a party to an edit war? Twopenneth (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you would benefit from an outside opinion. I think it is entirely relevant to mention in the education section schools located within the town and schools outside the town that provide education to its pupils. Myton School's priority area map clearly shows a large section of Leamington so it should be included it within this article. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a complete outsider (I'm from the US), I would agree with keeping the information on the outside schools in this case. IMHO, an article about a place should be about the place itself as much as the residents of the place. If there is an important facility outside the place to the lives and culture of the place, it should be mentioned in the article. To omit such information would leave the article less than complete. Think about the audience. Folks from outside the UK who are reading this article about a foreign place are trying to get a picture of the place. By not including important relationships with nearby places, makes the place seem like as island. Most places in the world are not really like that. --Arg342 (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the above that schools relevant to the place but not actually in the place should be mentioned as well. If the catchment area for a school covers areas of Leamington or significant number of pupils attend a school outside of Leamington then they are relevant and you would expect these schools to be mentioned here. Keith D (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Spa[edit]

I restored some less major companies that were removed (a source listing them would help), and in the source [3] Audiomotion is mentioned as part of the area, but according to their website they are based in Wheatley (formerly in Oxford), so I left them off. Widefox; talk 13:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Famous people from Leamington[edit]

The list is getting very long and it has it's own category page now. Might just remove all the people in the list from the article page leaving the link to the category. Any thoughts? Cls14 (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May be better to move to a separate list article rather than just a category, you can at least have a short description of the person and supply a reference. Keith D (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea. Thanks Cls14 (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Royal Leamington Spa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 September 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Leamington Spa → Leamington Spa – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The official name of the town may well be Royal Leamington Spa, but in common parlance, most sources and people refer to it simply as Leamington Spa (or even just plain Leamington sometimes, but that title is a dab page). Here is an NGRAM showing the two terms: [[4]]. Now obviously "Royal Leamington Spa" hits will also register for "Leamington Spa", but since LS is many orders of magnitude higher than RLS in the NGRAM, it clearly shows that it's still the heavily favoured form in books. This issue was actually discussed above, at the top of this page, between 2003-05, and a rough consensus emerged to use the shorter form, but it was then changed back to the longer form without discussion in 2010.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Per WP:COMMONNAME. Hardly anyone calls it 'Royal' Leamington Spa. As you say, no discussion about moving it. G-13114 (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support commonname so obvious that I'm surprised it hasn't moved itself by now. Royal Tunbridge Wells is clearly posher than us, and Royal Wootton Bassett can fend for itself. Widefox; talk 11:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Widefox: you're from Leamington yourself are you? I grew up there as it happens, although living in London now. And like you, I don't recall the "Royal" ever being used in normal conversations, other than perhaps by the mayor, and by the Royal Leamington Spa Bach Choir etc... Most of my friends just say "Leam" when referring to the place.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Hi, OK it's true..I grew up here too and am here again! I imagine the commonname is "Leamington Spa" with "Leamington" in second place. I see the front page of WDC mentions it as "Leamington" [5] although their postal address is "Leamington Spa". The town council which includes "Royal" and "Spa" doesn't even stick to always using them, [6] using both "Leamington Spa" and "Leamington", although regaining it's composure with the unusual address "Royal Leamington Spa". An official tourist site what's on page also uses the highly uncommon "RLS" (which is just odd), and our dab RLS links it (although it technically shouldn't unless we add it in a section to cover such variants). Widefox; talk 17:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
..That's the "Royal", but in terms of "Spa"...the usage is the opposite of the similar local comparison of Cheltenham vs Cheltenham Spa. eg. "Cheltenham Borough" council uses just "Cheltenham", and just like Bath it has a "Spa" station. Widefox; talk 17:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Cavarrone 20:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. By far the commonest name. I live just up the road and people round here never, ever call it Royal Leamington Spa (in fact, as already stated, they most commonly refer to it as "Leamington" or "Leam", but that's by the by, as I think most people in Britain would add the "Spa" at the end, but not the "Royal" at the beginning). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Leamington Spa. 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:

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) 20:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Leamington Spa. 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:

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) 07:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo[edit]

Previous image
Current image

I came to discuss the change of the infobox image on the Leamington Spa article. I disagree with the image change that G-13114 did here.

The current image is too dark and dull compare to the one previously. The previous photo gave a more recent impression of what Leamington Spa is today, rather then what it was in 2005. Thoughts? --Vauxford (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford: While I agree with you that the changed image is not an improvement (the car spoils the composition), I don't particularly love the previous one either for representing the town. It just seems to mostly show tarmac and a weird sort of tunnel effect. There's plenty of pretty scenes at Category:Royal Leamington Spa and its subcats to consider. Rcsprinter123 (gossip) 14:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rcsprinter123 Reason why the photograph is at that location since it at the centre of Royal Leamington Spa. The Parade is the most recognised part of the town in my opinion, alongside the Victorian pump rooms. --Vauxford (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this or this. Just a bit more interesting than a load of road. Rcsprinter123 (chew) 15:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The previous photo might show road, but it also shows the line of shops and the architecture of the building while depicting what the roads are like as of 2018. --Vauxford (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with Rcsprinter123's first alternative. Neither of the two previous versions are very good, either photographically or as a representation of the town. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree neither are that brilliant, I thought my replacement was lighter and less dull than the first one. Rdsprinter123's first image was actually used as the lead picture at one time, but it was changed. this is another possible replacement. G-13114 (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G-13114 Well I can't really say much about it since I took that one myself. But it up to you and other to decide if it a nice recent example of The Parade buildings. --Vauxford (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fire[edit]

There has recently been a fire at this place, and i would like it if someone with more skill then me were to write the section about the fire. 56independent/notacoworcatTalk 22:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fire is in the news today, but not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. It might deserve a sentence or two but not more than that.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parade, Leamington Spa may be of interest. PamD 14:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leamington_Spa&oldid=1208120918"