Talk:Edmonton, London

Local Photographer. Suggestions for images of interest in Edmonton?

I plan to add some images to this reference. Is there anything in particular people not local to this place think would be usefull to see? Yes,Maybe photos of the semi rural areas of Edmonton such as the River Lee and the William Girling reservoir.Northmetpit 15:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Town of Edmonton?

"Often refered to as the town of Edmonton"

I'm taking this out - I've been living in Edmonton since 1988 and I've never heard anybody say any such thing! BTLizard

As stated in the article, until 1965 Edmonton had a town hall, and there are various references to the "town of Edmonton" up to that time. As an example, in 1621, The Witch of Edmonton (published in 1658) by Thomas Dekker, John Ford, William Rowley, et al. is set in "The town and neighbourhood of Edmonton". Coyets (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I grew up in the area in the 1970's, and it was still commonly referred to as "Edmonton Town" then, just as there was also "Enfield Town." 84.93.165.235 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Boundary

Hi folks, I would not quarrel with the latest edit by user IMC in removing "historical" from the first sentence where it formerly said "The man-made River Lee Diversion .. forms the .. historical boundary between Middlesex and Essex." because as IMC says, the original boundary was the original river Lea, not the man-made diversion. But.. The lead sentence now says "The man-made River Lee Diversion .. forms the .. boundary between Middlesex and Essex.", which ceased to be true in 1965 with implementation of the London Government Act 1963. Can anyone suggest a better wording for this? Pterre (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually created the Lower Edmonton web site that is used as a reference for the comment and it does look rather garbled. However surely the issue is what on earth the comment is doing in the first paragraph anyway. What is so important about the eastern boundary? Grunson (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No changes to the physical Middlesex/Essex border took place in 1965. The Local Government Act merely redefined ADMINISTRATIVE boundaries, just as the later 1974 local-government reorganization changed only administrative boundaries, not actual county boundaries. 87.115.88.67 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Middlesex/Essex boundary

I've taken that section out. As you say the diversion of the river was never the boundary, and as such a boundary no longer exists, it should be dealt with (if at all) in the 'history' section, not the introductory paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.182.112 (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Such a boundary no longer exists? Yes it does! There is still an Essex/Middlesex boundary. The fact that bureaucrats redefined administrative boundaries hasn't changed that. Even the government itself has acknowledged that the various local govt. changes (1974 etc.) were NOT decreeing changes in actual county boundaries or attempting to abolish counties as such. 87.115.56.207 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And still those who I must assume have some sort of agenda keep trying to insist that Middlesex no longer exists, despite the fact that they cannot cite anything which officially abolished it as a county. The abolition of any particular government administrative body bearing the county name is NOT the same thing! 87.115.163.24 (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The only agenda is Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. Please read this. If you have a problem with the policy might I suggest you raise this in the appropriate forum. The fact that Edmonton (along with numerous other places which do not suffer repeated vandalism) was part of Middlesex prior to the creation of Greater London is referred to later in the article. Please also note that if you wish to show that Edmonton is still in Middlesex the onus lies on you to provide reliable references, not on anyone to disprove it. Pterre (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You talk as if these Wikipedia guidelines are somehow more important than facts. That Edmonton had been within Middlesex for centuries does not seem to be disputed by anyone. So where is the legislation which decreed that Middlesex, as a county, was no longer to exist? Can you cite it? Of course not, because no such legislation was ever passed. Middlesex County Council, the local government body, was abolished, certainly. But that's not the same thing as a decree that the county itself is no longer to be considered to be in existence. 87.112.142.201 (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Take your arguments to UKGEO. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Where your claim, backed up by official documentation and statements will be completely dismissed because "established Wikipedia policy," despite having nothing to back it up, will be deemed to take precedence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.48.115 (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No. At UKGEO you can make your argument that the encyclopedia would be improved by changing the naming guideline. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way (User talk:87.112.142.201) or (User talk:46.208.48.115) or whatever IP address you appear as next. I support Mr Steven's repeated suggestions about raising your issue at the UKGeo Talk pages. I would also advise apart from your constant habit of ignoring advice the other reasons why your posts lack credibility is that you keep on appearing using a new IP address every day or so which becomes tedious for other editors wo have to establish if you are a new editor contributing or not. This may not be done on purpose but does not help your cause. Maybe you are just failing to log in but I assume its because you have not registered with an account. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? I encourage you to open an account as by doing this as you will achieve more. As will acting in a polite and respectful way towards other editors. Unfortunately you do not have a good track record to date when you repeatedly accuse them of being bureaucrats with an agenda and trying to further their own interests etc. Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith and see here which deals with civility and avoiding the making of personal attacks on oher editors. I hope you are of the mind to take this advice on board.Tmol42 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

External links

The (WP:EL) guideline says that external links should be kept to a minimum, they should contain encyclopaedic material which can't be included in the article for copyright reasons. The links must be directly relevant the the subject of the article. Links that should be avoided (WP:ELNO): links that are there just to promote a website, personal websites, sites which are too general (in this case the whole borough not just Edmonton) and sites which are too specific (in this case schools, parks not the whole of Edmonton). Also WP:ELBURDEN says "Disputed links should be excluded by default until there is a consensus to include them."Grim²³★ 16:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Grim²³★. Thanks for reply. I have just gone through the external links and do understand that check on unwelcome links has to be done. The links here all contain useful and relevant information and add to the article. (Northmetpit (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)).

Hello Northmetpit, I still feel that the links don't adhere to WP:EL guidelines:

• Pymmes Park Information: This website is too specific, it only covers Pymmes Park not the whole of Edmonton.(see point number 13 in WP:ELNO)
• Lee Valley Park website: Likewise this website is too specific.
• Lower Edmonton N9 Information: This is a personal website (see point number 11 in WP:ELNO) and describes its self as "tongue in cheek"
• Edmonton County School Old Scholars Association: This website is too specific.
• Reports and Statistics for Edmonton and Enfield Borough: This website is too general but maybe information specifically about Edmonton can be deep linked?.(see point number 13 in WP:ELNO)
• Council Tax charges for Edmonton and Enfield Borough: This is an estate agents website, with lots of adverts, containing minimal and out of date information. (see points 4 and 5 in WP:ELNO)
• Lee Anglers' Consortium: This website is too specific.(see point number 13 in WP:ELNO)
• Edmonton TV: This is a personal website (see point number 11 in WP:ELNO), contains no encyclopedic information and is not neutral.

Some of these sites do have encyclopedic information, but they should be used as sources if they count as reliable sources. Having said all this I can live with the inclusion of Pymmes Park, Lea Valley and Reports and Statistics for Edmonton and Enfield Borough. But I feel the other links are there purely to promote their websites and should be removed. Grim²³★ 19:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In particular, Pymmes Park, Lee Valley Park and Edmonton County School have their own articles, which are linked to in this article, and it is sufficient that the external links related to these three topics appear in those articles. Coyets (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replies. I have removed several of the links. I have kept the Lower Edmonton site onboard as it is a mine of information.(Northmetpit (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)).

Proposed merge with Houndsfield Primary School

Non-notable primary school Tacyarg (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The page has a reliable source. In my experience, most schools can now meet the test of WP:N. Also, Edmonton has a large number of schools, see List of schools in Enfield, and the page for Edmonton would be swamped by new sections for each of them. There is no harm in this school having its own article. Moonraker (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Edmonton as a town?

Sirfurboy, you told me that Edmonton is "historically" a town. But its historically. It now is a London suburb. The opening description even says "District of London". 2A02:C7C:B459:F500:79B1:190A:9290:6836 (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead says it is both a town and a local government district. Which is true. But why wouldn't we call it a town? It had a town council, a town hall, a town centre and sources called it and continue to call it a town. We do this for all London towns. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, many other areas of London have a town hall and they aren't called towns. Wandsworth, West Ham, East Ham aren't called "towns" but just regular districts and areas. 2A02:C7C:B459:F500:79B1:190A:9290:6836 (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Wandsworth is literally also called "Wandsworth Town"! Also, scroll up to the section above: "Town of Edmonton?". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read the article many times and it said "Wandsworth Town is a district of South London" not a town. 2A02:C7C:B459:F500:79B1:190A:9290:6836 (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Which proves what? The page also has a picture of "Wandsworth's town centre". Are you saying Wandsworth Town is not a town? In any case, the only thing that matters is how sources describe Edmonton. As I said, note the discussion above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It proves my point that not all of the London suburbs are called "town" solely because they have a town hall. Look at East Ham article you guys made, that's also called a "district" and not a town, besides it doesn't even have the traits to be a town. 2A02:C7C:B459:F500:79B1:190A:9290:6836 (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I am hoping others may join this discussion, but to be clear, per WP:ONUS, a consensus is required before re-asserting a challenged edit. You say you don't see it in the sources. I said twice to scroll up, where discussion on this page did show at least one source for it. There is also this [1][2] (both for the same thing) that speaks of the Angel Edmonton as the town centre, and another source [3] speaking of Edmonton Green in the same terms. Edmonton is both a district and a town (as is the case for many London towns). It is historically a town and referred to as such, and the town hall is a bit of a giveaway on that. Whether it is still a town is a question we could explore, but your edit removed the historical information of it as a town too, so that won't do. In any case, again, it seems (if you read up the page) that people locally still called it a town after the demolition of the town hall.

Now you also say look at East Ham and West Ham. But there are many counter examples, because Wikipedia pages are not sources for other Wikipedia pages. If you want to challenge the way London towns are described en masse, then raise it at Wikipedia Project London. Otherwise, if discussing here, what matters is what the sources say about Edmonton, not what they say about East Ham and West Ham. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It still has the same concept. Not to mention that West Ham, East Ham, Wandsworth and Edmonton all have town halls, but only Edmonton is called a "town" and all the others have been called an area, a suburb or a district. 5.69.179.242 (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing here that Edmonton is an "area" or "suburb" or "district" - I'd argue that having a "town centre" does not make an area a town, it's more of a colloquialism. I'd argue that in the absence of consensus, the less specific "district" should be used. FelixJ20000 (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Lower case n and easter egg link

NebY, why do you keep reverting back to the easter egg wikilink for North London (lower case n), when there'a already a dedicated North London wiki article that has a capital "N"?

I do not think this is necessary; North London is a name of one sub-region of Greater London, so it should have a capital N in the lead. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

NebY placed a reason in the edsum. MOS:COMPASS is link which will explain that it would only be North London if there is a defined place of that name, consistently capitalised that way. There isn't. North London is not officially defined, and notice the capitalisation on that page. It is the northern part of London, not a named place, and this is consistent with usage elsewhere. E.g., entirely at random, [4]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It is definitely not an easter egg. Indeed, as MOS:EASTEREGG says, A link's visible label does not need to match the exact title of the article being linked. Still, MOS:PIPESTYLE has reminded me that Links are not sensitive to initial capitalization, so there is no need to use the pipe character where the case of the initial letter is the only difference between the link text and the target page. (Wikipedia article titles almost always begin with a capital, whereas the linked words in context often do not.) However, links are case-sensitive for all characters after the initial one. We can have [[north London]] rather than [[North London|north London]] and though this is a cosmetic edit (not visible to readers) that we'd usually eschew, I'll make that change in this article.

It might help to remember that though article titles qua titles are in sentence case, that does not mean that their capitalisation is appropriate everywhere (hence MOS:PIPESTYLE). MOS:COMPASS and other rules of English – many of which we don't bother to document in the MOS – apply. NebY (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)