Talk:Northolt

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

Location[edit]

Northolt is a villiage near ickenham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.168.221 (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crime[edit]

I rolled back some crime stuff which was in a mess and unreferenced, but now there's nothing, which isn't good either. Sorry about that. Can anyone with local knowledge find some relevant, well-referenced stuff, please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section seems strange and seems written by somebody with an axe to grind about the place perhaps? Rectory Park Road, quoted, doesn't exist in Northolt (although there is a Rectory Park Avenue) and Nimrod Close is a tiny little side street which should hardly warrant a mention - Maybe the author had some bad experiences in Northolt. Irisismykid (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That section has now been removed by an IP editor. As it was totally unreferenced, it's difficult to shed a tear over it. I will continue to hope that if anyone wants to put something in about crime they can provide decent stuff with proper references. I do not think that the section just removed should be restored. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To: Charlesdrakew You placed the following caution on 15 May 2012: Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Northolt. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Charles (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Sir, Your conclusion is surprising and disappointing. The links added were not inappropriate; nor were they inserted for the purpose of advertising or promotion. The links related directly to schools in the relevant area and Ofsted ratings for those schools. The links were intended to provide a valuable, objective source of reference for parents of potential pupils at local schools. Especially in view of the infamous body of redundancy and misinformation occasionally to be found on Wikipedia, the zeal with which these manifestly well-intentioned and instructive links were sanctioned cannot help but seem (with regret) misguided to the point of ignorance. D. Mon 28 May 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Del71 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

West London[edit]

Northolt is part of The London Borough of Ealing and therefore is West London not Northwest London.

Says who?Charles (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boroughs are just one of the local authority boundaries. Northolt is also in the Northwest Health Authority and the Northwest London Diocese [1] and there are a few others. Why should WP pick one over the other and break normal convention?
There is something about maintaining geo spatial relationships. Give an example. Say a visitor to the UK came out of the Tate Modern Gallery and asked you the direction to the Globe Theatre. How do you think he would react if you replied: “Simple, as your now in West London you need to travel some 2½ miles north-east to end up at the Globe in South London.” Wouldn't he look at you as if you were a few cardinal points short of a compass? The consensus that localities which are in the north-west of London, are continued to be referred to as being in the north-west of London, for the practical conveyancing of the fact, that their spatial relationship to London , means that, as they are in the north-west of London, they might as well continued to be referred to, as laying in the north-west of London, because that is where they are! This was the norm long before WP was a twinkle in Jimmy’s eye. Continuing pontification in a circular argument against common sense and the norm (consensus) is disruptive editing.--Aspro (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So why is Thamesmead SE London and not E London? Based on this page:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/Londonpostal_iln_1857.jpg

Northolt would be in W not NW. Justgravy (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An 1857 postal district map is no use whatsoever. Postal districts names are not geographic descriptions any more than modern postcodes have any geographic meaning - otherwise we could say that Northolt (UB5) is in east Uxbridge! Besides, Northolt's postal address until the 1960s and beyond was Middlesex, not London. Emeraude (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, drawing a line between Charing X and the centre of Northolt the angle is less than 292.5 degrees i.e. more west than due WNW i.e. closer to west than northwest. Justgravy (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The compass bearing is of no relevance whatsoever - we are not trying to fly an accurate heading from Charing X. Not that Charing X is the geographic centre of London in any case; it's just the arbitrary point from which distances are measured. Look at the map of Greater London, conveniently included in the Northolt article. If you want to say Northolt is in "West London" then you accept that London has only two parts - west and east - which places Northolt in the same zone as Cockfosters and Hadley Wood, both about as far north as possible in London, and Coulsdon (ditto south). Northolt is clearly to the west of a line down the centre of London, by some margin. It's much further west than the West End, which is in central London. But, it is also clearly to the north of a line through the centre of London, making "north west" as a description both more useful and more accurate. Emeraude (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This makes no sense! Southall is north of this East / West line through the centre as well so lets change that. Justgravy (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I can't believe it! Justgravy has just changed Southall form west to northwest London. Hope he's not a pilot for Coconut Airways. Will never find Barbados.--Aspro (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Folks. The long term prevailing consensus (both here on WP and at large) is firmly NW in-regard to this Village and we have better things to do. Lets call it a day and refer further any more disputes to whom ever advises editors on the subject Wikipedia:Competence is required. Let them take it up, as such a continuation, may spill out into disrupting Wikimedia Commons and how their editors choose to describe the location of images.
As the Royal Mail considers UB5 (Northolt's post code) to be in the north-west outer London postal region, then perhaps a category could be created in which to place localities, so as to avoid such a repeat on other articles.--P.g.champion (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide a link etc. to this north-west outer London postal region because according to:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ianvisits/4467416568/sizes/o/

It is W. Justgravy (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is over. If you what to escalate this further, suggest you take it to Wikipedia:Teahouse.--Aspro (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Steady on there. The Teahouse was never intended for this sort of dispute. It is to coach new editors. Try Requests for comment or Village pump.Charles (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually curious to read this outer London postal region, to see what is placed where. Justgravy (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for more information[edit]

Editor SovalValtos mentions there is little info with which to improve the article. I agree. So I've started doing a little googling for the historical side:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload%3Ft%3Darch-457-1/dissemination/pdf/vol02/vol02_13/02_13_339_342.pdf&sa=U&ei=6PaZVJXOAciqUen7gMAH&ved=0CBkQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNHewrIHEuSimqkJzGkIJeFBj6-raw

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload%3Ft%3Darch-769-1/dissemination/pdf/vol05/5_211_299.pdf&sa=U&ei=6PaZVJXOAciqUen7gMAH&ved=0CBQQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNH6on1mOzGo4wsZsDV4NcP7Z5dqAg <nowiki>http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/middx/vol4/pp109-113

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-environs/vol3/pp306-319

http://www.ealing.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/2445/northolt_village_green_area_management_plan

Haven't got time to read, digest and add the information now, as we are frantically busy, on having received a Red Security Alert. Apparently, some geezer is planing to enter our home sometime this week by squeezing himself down the 8 inch heating flue! Might sound unlikely but around this part of North West London he is known serial offender who has perfected his technique. Be warned, he might be coming your way too.--Aspro (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that UKIP has policies it would like to implememnt to deal with foreign criminals coming over here and nicking work from our own. Emeraude (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And about time too. On previous unauthorised entries, he has emptied the sherry decanter (fortunately it was only the cheap stuff I buy the wife). Mind you, I thinks we're ready for him this time. The house now resembles a Norwegian forest -just to confuse him. And my daughter has genetically re-engineered our dog (or something along those lines that only teenagers know how to do) so he has sprouted a pair of plastic antlers and were his nose once was there is now this big bulbous red thing. He even frightens himself when he looks in the mirror. He sure scares the life out of me.--Aspro (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sources exactly, but Britain from Above has a collection of 1920s - 1950s aerial photographs covering most of Britain. In the case of Northolt, there are numerous shots of the racecourse, e.g. Northolt Park Race Course, Northolt, 1931 and The stands and paddock at Northolt Park Racecourse, Northolt, 1934. Could supply some useful external links. Emeraude (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was wondering about those images. What came to my mind was, since they were shot for commercial purposes, the 50 year UK copyright has expired on many. So a shot of the race course could be added. We might need to heed the terms and conditions of that web-site however, if we get them from there. Incidentally, the entrance gates can be still be seen on Google's street view: [2] for any local who wondered what these gate were for. At this time of the year I'm planing what I may shoot in the summer. I think I'll take a trip down to Gunnersbury Park Museum with my light-tent and take a few images of some of the archaeological artefacts recovered in Northolt. Although this museum is a bit iffy about photos taken for more than personal use, the realization that this is positive publicity might sway them. Also, I have a rather bad photo of the 1452 floor brass of Rowdell in St. Mary's church which needs re-doing with a light-tent. The last time I was in there, I couldn't take a photo of the Gyfforde brasses either, as there was some sort of modern keyboard instrument sitting over the top with a woman insisting on finishing her rendition of all things bright and beautiful. Although she was probably playing all the right notes, they didn't seem to be in the right order – so I had to take my leave to preserve my sensibilities. If any one is passing Ealing Central Library, their Local History dept. (speak to Dr Jonathan Oats) may may have some useful stuff too.--Aspro (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that Britain From Above images are unusable. Although the original photos may be out of copyright, these ars modern digitised images taken from the originals and thus subject to new copyright. The website states, "The images, information and data featured on this website are subject to Crown Copyright and other Intellectual Property Rights held by the Partners and Individual Contributors as indicated." and "No permission is given for any commercial use, distribution or reproduction". Emeraude (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries there: Copyright is a 'privilege' granted as of right, to those who produce creative images, which extends from the moment such a creative work is published only for a set time. Slavish copying does not create a new copyright in that creative work (which would allow in perpetual copyright and outside the privilege as stated in law). Otherwise, just a few organization would now be 'owning' all our cultural heritage that our forebears created, just by these organizations simply copying and placing a © against it. The law does not grant them that privilege - even though they might claim so. It is that site's T&C we need to consider and an image on WP would drive more traffic to them, so they may see it as a win-win.--Aspro (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, this copy/renewed copyright myth has already cropped upon our sister project Wikimedia Commons. National Portrait Gallery. National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. The upshot of this was, that the NPG realized that WC was making a wider audience aware that that the NPG had a large expository of art, in a way, that was more efficiently than the NPG could publicize themselves. And there was no point in the NPG lawyers throw-all-their-toys-out-of-the-pram and demand that the law satisfy their imaginary rights. Because the law did not grant lawyers the right to make-up-the-law to suit themselves. So these images are still on WC for all to see. That is a practical, real-world example of the win-win that I mentioned above. --Aspro (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of Northolt vis Climate of South Rusilp.[edit]

As User:Emeraude points out. The automatic weather station that gathers this information is situated in South Ruslip. Which is at a lower elevation than the village of Northolt. So when a BBC outside broad-cast unit descends on the village of Northolt during a summer heat wave, to ask the locals what they think about being in the hottest spot in Britain, they really should be asking residents of Ruslip -which is like 2 degrees hotter. Have no objection to the Weather box (deleted by Emeraude) to be transferred to Ruislip. This may seem like pontificating but as an encyclopedia, should we not get this right? Applaud Emeraude for removing it from Northolt but lets go the extra mile and explain this information comes from a robot in Ruslip, on ground named RAF Northolt because that was the nearest railway station that served the airfield. Aspro (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The climate at Northolt will be virtually identical to the climate at Northolt Aerodrome, which will also be virtually identical to the climate at South Ruislip. The altitude of the aerodrome is 35-40 metres. The altitude of Northolt 'village' is 35-40 metres. It is perfectly valid to place climate data from Northolt Aerodrome within this article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Virtually identical" is not good enough for an encyclopaedia. The fact is, the figures are collected by RAF personnel on the air base, which is not in Northolt. Northolt is an urban area; the airfield is essentially open country so there will be significant differences in weather readings (in temperature and wind strength especially). Given the co-ordinates for the airport's reference point (the crossing of the two runways) and the Met Office data collection point, we can deduce that the weather station is on the north side of the airfield and therefore closer to Ruislip Gardens than to South Ruislip. Weather statistics are not collected, officially at least, for Northolt village. Emeraude (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly legitimate to state the Met Office climate statistics for Northolt within this article. If there are concerns that the weather station is not sited slap-bang in the middle of Northolt built-up area, then a short explanation of its location can be included along with the statistics. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it not "slap-bang in the middle of Northolt built-up area", it's not even in Northolt! That is the point. Emeraude (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is about a mile and a half from Northolt 'village'; that is plenty close enough to be included as descriptive of the climate here. Please see London (Good Article, uses data from Heathrow), Yeovil (Good Article, uses data from Yeovilton) and Bristol (Featured Article, uses data from Filton), as just a few examples. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Think that when PaleCloudedWhite say's “Good Article, uses data from Heathrow” he means the Automatic terminal information service. You can listen in to it on 113.75 on the two meter radio band. Heathrow having been constructed on a low flat heath (hence the name Heathrow) has a different climate. It is nothing to do with distance. I use the service to double check my barometer and to decide whether I need to leave the house with an umbrella or not. But as to temperature and visibility reported by the LHR ATIS (London Heathrow Airport automatic terminal information service) it often differs to me, eventhough I am just a few miles away and within hearing range of their engines as they fly almost overhead.. Have no problem at all with the 'climate chart' being included for Ruslip because its is an accurate record of Ruslip's climate... but not the Village of Northolt (unless it makes clear on the Northolt article that weather station is in Rusip and not Northolt). Accuse me of pontificating if you like, but not before reading Microclimate. The weather station is not in Northolt. Aspro (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "an accurate record of Ruislip's climate" any more than it is an accurate or inaccurate record of Northolt's climate. The microclimate in my back garden is different from the microclimate in my front garden, this does not mean that a weather station sited in an open field half a mile up the road cannot be used as a description of the general climate for both front and back gardens. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not "half a mile up the road". Northolt Station and the aerodrome control tower are 2½ miles apart. However, I believe from the met Offic website that the weather station is on the south side of the aerodrome, still 2.1 miles away. Emeraude (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're splitting hairs. From a climatological point of view, it doesn't matter if it's half a mile or 2 miles or even 5 miles, providing that basic factors - primarily altitude, aspect and distance from the sea - are similar. Which they are. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we must have these weather boxes, which contain more detailed information than an encyclopaedia article needs, they are best put on the county article as part of the climate section for the county. We do not need them in every settlement article, even when local official data is available. I support removing it from Northolt.Charles (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a slightly different discussion to the one above, and is probably best decided here. According to the other editors here, these boxes couldn't possibly be used in county articles because the climate data they contain is only applicable within about a one mile radius. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They can be used as an example for that area but as I said I would rather not use them at all. There is a simpler form of weather box showing typical temperature and rainfall through the year.Charles (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pony racing[edit]

Viscount Lascelles and Earl Harewood are the same person but the article suggests one constructed the course and the other opened it. Wikipedia's own pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Harewood#Earls_of_Harewood_.281812.29 AsparagusTips (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation ?[edit]

Article gives no info on this. Is it "North - holt", "Nort - holt" or "North - olt" ? I guess the first, but can't be certain. Has the place been known 1000 years or more ? Boeing720 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I used to live within a mile of Northolt, and always pronounced it as per the last of your variants, though I'm not a native of the area and could have introduced my own regional bias to the pronunciation. And of course I'm not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your honest reply! I think you're correct that "correct pronunciation" is the local one. Boeing720 (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was born and brought up nearby as well. "North - holt" and "Nort - holt" are definitely wrong. I'd suggest the name is pronounced somwehwere between "North - olt" and "Nor - tholt" (with the "nor" as in north rather than "nor"). Emeraude (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of history and demographics[edit]

Any ideas on how to clarify the two overlapping sections - merge them or leave the numbers and merge the text into history?Sciencefish (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northolt&oldid=1212456667"