Jump to content

Talk:Chingford

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

References to Normanhurst School

[edit]

These seem to be advertising and therefore should be removed. Normanhurst School is not one of the 'landmarks' of Chingford since it looks like a set of redbrick Victorian houses on Station Road and is not something especially visible or used by locals to find their way.


Geographic location

[edit]

The article states Chingford is in East London, in Essex. Which is it? It can't be in both, unless the border runs through the town like it does in Woodford Green. If so, please reflect this.

It is in East London; link has all the districts whch includes Waltham Forest. The Essex reference is 'historic' so moved further down the lede Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonnyspeed20, the fact it is in East London does not contradict the fact it is in Essex. Even whilst Chingford, Leytonstone, Walthamstow, Leyton, etc, were in the administrative county of Essex, they were considered part of East London. This was before Greater London and the London Borough of Waltham Forest even existed. In 1965, Greater London, a new local government structure, was created (along with Waltham Forest). Some places within the area of Essex County Council (the administrative county of Essex, now the non-metropolitan county of Essex) were moved to the new council area known as Greater London, so merely from the control of one government body to another. The changes were to local government boundaries, not to the boundaries of the counties themselves, London or East London. What causes all this confusion is the conflation of Greater London and London, as well as the status of Greater London as a ceremonial "county". Different sets of "counties" have different names. Historic counties are an example. The fact they are called "historic" does not mean they are obsolete, do not exist or are not relevant to today. They are just not used for administration by local government bodies. Hope this helps. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is "were" in Essex - simply none of these places are now in the county of Essex, as it is currently defined. There are loads of space in paragraph 2 for talking about the history. Having things like Walthamstow... is in the historical area of Essex in the first line is confusing, it is not in Essex. It's like we don't say Stratford is in the historic area of Ēastseaxe, the land of the Eastern Saxons. Like we don't say "Soho is in the ancient county of Middlesex" in the first line of the entry Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my response again. Essex is "currently defined" in multiple ways. As I have already said, the changes in 1965 were to administrative/council/local government boundaries. Not to counties. It isn't like mentioning that a place is "in the historic area of Ēastseaxe" in the first line. Ēastseaxe doesn't exist. Essex does, and the location of Chingford/Walthamstow/etc in the historic county of Essex continues to be relevant. A place's location in its historic county can be mentioned in the lead as per the WikiProject guidelines for UK Geography. By the way, when communicating with other users on talk pages, you might want to tag them by using mentioning them like this, Jonnyspeed20. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of these places are in Essex. There is no definition that makes these places currently in Essex. Historically, absolutely. ~~ I do have a solution though... Start paragraph 2 with all your talk of historical counties Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PlatinumClipper96 -- I have made the edits to clearly say these places are "is in the historic county of Essex" with specific extra clarification of the ancient parish. I hope this works for you? Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jonnyspeed20. Although my personal preference would be that the county is mentioned alongside being part of "East London" in the first line, I'm happy as long as it is clear the area is within its respective historic county. Thanks for your recent edits that acknowledge and make clear the location of these places within the historic county of Essex. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad we have resolution. My further comments are mainly for procedure, should this issue be raised again and Resolution is required. Thank you for being so amenable. We obviously don't agree that Boroughs are more important than Norman boundaries, though we have a solution Jonnyspeed20 (talk) Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the first line are we mentioning technical stuff like ceremonial counties. "Chingford is a suburban area of East London within the London Borough of Waltham Forest. Part of Essex until 1965, the area borders..." would be better. LondonEast4 (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PlatinumClipper96 as you are aware, your edit is against the guidelines in WP:UKCOUNTIES You have asserted this edit 16 times now and been reverted by multiple editors. It is clear you do not have a consensus for this change. Here, as in Romford and elsewhere, I ask you to stop edit warring. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, and how many times has LondonEast4 asserted their edit? My edits are in compliance with WP:BRD and WP:UKTOWNS. Edits where historic county information gets removed also get "reverted by multiple editors". The "multiple editors" you speak of on this page are blocked user Jonnyspeed20/associated sock IP and LondonEast4. I am not edit-warring; I am complying with WP:BRD. LondonEast4 is not. I am not the one edit-warring here.
Again, WP:UKCOUNTIES is guidelines for county articles. Chingford is not a county. WP:UKTOWNS guidance is the guidance here. I would disagree that there is no consensus for present-tense historic county wording. Articles with present-tense historic county wording are, more often than not, stable. Middlesex (within the realm of WP:UKCOUNTIES), for instance, starts with "Middlesex is a historic county", and has done for years. The infrequent edits attempting to change it to "was" get reverted. Whether the guidelines state the counties still exist or not, I would argue that present-tense wording is still appropriate. The historic counties are historic counties.
It doesn't seem you want to actually contribute to this discussion. You have barely addressed anything I have put forward. Instead you are reverting my edits across several articles, and making the same accusations across talk pages (rather than actually discussing the content), which I object to. This is on the verge of WP:HOUNDING. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and how many times has LondonEast4 asserted their edit? - 6 times. You reverted his edits every time. And yet I see no discussion here from you, so I am not clear in what sense you tink you are complying with WP:BRD. Then again, that is just a guideline, like the guideline that says when talking about counties (which we are, when we say something was in a county) we use past tense. I see that when editors change Middlesex to use past tense as per the WP:UKCOUNTIES they do indeed get reverted. By you. [1]. So you specifically reverted an edit on that page from a version compliant with guidelines to one that is not. If you think there is hounding, as I said to you at Talk:Romford, you will discuss that at ANI. This is not the place. If you think the guidelines are wrong, you will discuss that on the guidelines pages, preferably with an RFC. The only question we have here, and it is not me who is ignoring this question, is why should this page be edited with text that does not conform to the guidelines which specifcally say We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. Clearly there is no world in which such a statement could be true for articles about counties and not true for articles that are talking about counties. What is it about Chingford that makes it an exception? Exceptions exist, but at no point have you made any argument that Chingford is an exception. Instead, you have just re-asserted your same edit, without discussion, for the 17th time on this page alone.[2] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, per WP:BRD, it is down to the bold editor to start a discussion on their proposed edits: Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you. To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, you must not restore your bold edit, make a different edit to this part of the page, or engage in back-and-forth reverting. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement... If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. Instead, take it to the talk page (see below). If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD. LondonEast4 is the bold editor, and it is therefore up to them to initiate discussion. On "this page alone" there has also been sockpuppetry/editwarring from the likes of Jonnyspeed20 - the "17" times I have asserted this wording would include edits/reverts made when this account was active.
"I see that when editors change Middlesex to use past tense as per the WP:UKCOUNTIES they do indeed get reverted. By you." Why the snarkiness? On the Middlesex article, I only ever reverted TWO edits from ONE editor. Stable wording, for the article's 20-year existence, has been "is a historic county". On the rare occasion that this wording is changed to "was", a revert takes place. Look at the article's 20-year history.
Yes - the stable "is" wording on the Middlesex article goes against the guidelines about tense on WP:COUNTIES. "The only question we have here, and it is not me who is ignoring this question, is why should this page be edited with text that does not conform to the guidelines which specifcally say We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries...What is it about Chingford that makes it an exception?" - as I have said elsewhere, whether your view is, or consensus is, that the historic counties were abolished (I would argue they were not), the wording "is in the historic county of", in the present tense, would not be incorrect or misleading, as "historic county" refers to the definition of the counties according to historical traditions (i.e. the areas which served as lieutenancy areas and the sole definition of "the counties" before the Local Government Act 1888). Even if changes to local government areas did did abolish the traditional/historic counties, the meaning of "historic county" would remain the same. The past-tense wording "was in the historic county of", which you have used, would imply that the traditional counties were distinguished from other definitions of the counties as being the "historic" ones before there were any other types of county from which to distinguish them. The Government itself, and plenty of reliable sources, many of which originate from Government webpages and documents, use the present tense to refer to historic counties. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two objections here, 1. Historic counties are not officially recognised by any authority or the post office. Maps showing their boundaries are always historical documents. We might as well say "England is part of the historic Roman Empire".

2. If we really must mention ceremonial and historic counties, terms seldom heard beyond these pages, could they please as another editor agreed previously, not be in the first paragraph. The history of the political geography of Chingford is well documented in the second paragraph. The start of this paragraph is the perfect place to mention historic counties, preferably in the past tense. LondonEast4 (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, guidelines at WP:UKTOWNS say that we should mention the historic county were different from the current county, but actually suggest this is in a paragraph describing the historical context. Guidelines on writing about counties (WP:UKCOUNTIES) clearly say that discussion about historical county be in the past tense because we do not assert, in wikivoice, the minority view that historic counties still exist with their former borders. The lead as it is today is repetitive, telling us twice that Chingford was in Essex, the first time with a wording suggesting it is still in a thing called a historic county, which is confusing. That first mention can go, because, as you say, this is already in the second paragraph which is fully compliant with the guidelines. I shall make an edit to reflect the guidelines and this consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sirfurboy, this clears up confusion, conforms with the guidelines, and is accurate and relevant. LondonEast4 (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'gap'

[edit]

When I view this page there is a big blank gap under the 'Landmarks' heading. Does anyone know how to remove this?


Lawrence and Pole Hill

[edit]

The statement, "Contrary to popular myth, Lawrence never lived on Pole Hill," needs a citation. (The Pole Hill page contradicts this statement, saying, "Lawrence of Arabia once owned a considerable amount of land on the western side of the hill and built himself a small hut there in which he lived for several years." It has a citation but this doesn't actually say he lived there.) Nonky (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Danniella Westbrook

[edit]

Her wiki page states that she lives in kent, and i could find no evidence so suggest otherwise, so i have deleted that line from the notable people section.86.21.103.217 (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chingford. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 15:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chingford. 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: 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) 08:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Chingford. 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: 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) 20:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chingford&oldid=1264456897"