Talk:Woodford, London

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

See Also[edit]

the see also section points to 241 squadron. Absolutely no idea what that is about!

User:guest 13:19, 09 May 2008 (CET)

The local unit of the Air Training Corps (ATC) is Squadron 241 - see http://www.241squadron.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=72. Hpwever that has nothing to do with Squadron 241 of the RAF. So I am removing the link. There is no article on the local ATC squadron.

86.180.239.74 (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Famous[edit]

I've moved this here until it can be verifired

Famous Woodfordians include:

MRSC 05:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chavs[edit]

I don't think this paragraph about chavs, etc. is particularly relevant to an encyclopaedic article about Woodford:

In recent months there has been controversy centred around the Woodford Station and Woodford Bridge areas. With the rising popularity of the chav style, young people (mostly male) tend to hang around in gangs and like 'assert their authority' to passing people, which can include verbal and even physical abuse, as an act of 'claiming their territory'. This occurs most common on a stretch of road called Snake's Lane, hillside avenue which joins the two areas. Snakes lane is a long road with alot of kids running around. This road hillside avenue is also a long busy road and has lots of youngsters living there this makes the crime scene worse. These gangs are normally made up of youths under 18 (but sometimes 18 or above) who dress in the chav style. Their usual victims are normally within the same age group as them who aren't many in number, which may depict their antics as bullying behaviour and intimidation. This claim is almost backed up by the fact that many of their victims follow a typical Rock music way of life (Grungers, Goths, Emos etc) who are practically the complete opposite of the chav lifestyle.

I don't doubt that it's true, but unless it can be shown that this is a notable problem peculiar to Woodford, it doesn't really belong here. chrismear 13:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. I suspect that "chav activity" in Woodford is less than in other areas of outer East London. Maybe worth a letter to the local paper, but irrelevant to this article. 82.5.126.57 23:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (or lack of)[edit]

Woodford in London has a strong claim to primary meaning. If a move of this page to Woodford, London is requested, use the WP:RM mechanism to allow a discussion. MRSC (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to Woodford, London[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woodford → Woodford, London — because there are many other places called Woodford listed at Woodford (disambiguation). Although the London suburb appears to be by some way the biggest, I don't think that it can reasonably be argued to be more significant than all the other Woodfords put together, and unless it is more significant than all the others then the greatest number of readers will be facilitated by having the disambiguation page at Woodford. Having the dab page at the undisambiguated title also assists in ensuring that all links points to the correct article, because there should then be no links to Woodford, and any which are created can be easily disambiguated using WP:POPUPS. This helps both readers and editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note In case editors are concerned about the work involved in fixing incoming links after the move, I undertake to do the disambiguation myself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The policy benchmark is much more used than any other topic (WP:D) not much more used than all the others put together. Because of its age (by far the oldest) and size, it is the primary topic. MRSC (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. This does indeed appear to be the current wording of WP:DAB (which by the way is a guideline, not a policy; note the distinction at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines). However, it's a perverse and silly wording, as this following example illustrates.
      There are 31 articles on places called "Abcxmyz". 30 of them get ten hits each, but one "Abcxmyz, Ruritania" gets get 100 hits. So we have a total of (3 X 10) + 100 = 400 hits, of which one gets ten times as many hits as any other single article, but still only 25% of the total. By selecting "Abcxmyz, Ruritania" as the primary topic, we inconvenience 75% of the readers searching by name, and screw up disambiguation of internal links.
      That's why it makes much more sense to compare one topic with "all the others put together", rather than a single other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This should be taken up at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, because such a change would have a strong impact on UK geography articles. The current set up often favours the "original"/older UK placename with all the alternatives occupying disambiguation. If we want to move to a model where every alternative is automatically disambiguated, the guideline needs to be agreed and updated first. MRSC (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it may be time to rewrite that guideline. Wikipedia guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, meaning they describe what we generally do, not tell us what to do. BrownHairedGirl is correct that we generally do compare the purported primary topic to all other contenders collectively. --Una Smith (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly they do both. From what I've seen of similar discussions involving UK place moves there has been a strong preference among editors for keeping an article in the primary slot where one already exists and our policies and guidelines (as far as I can see) support this. MRSC (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inertia seems to me to be a very bad principle for any such decision. The notion that there are some cases where a primary slot "already exists" is bizarre", because there is always a primary slot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there appears to be a strong preference by editors of UK articles to equate oldest to be primary. That does not carry over to other countries or other types of articles. So past decisions are not setting a precedent. If everyone agreed, then maybe there would be an exception, but clearly the proposals in this area have been more of a no consensus rather then support for the oldest is primary. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm sometimes persuaded by these arguments, but in this case, it does seem to be the primary usage; indeed having more "potential readers to be facilitated than all the other uses put together" (Woodford Reserve notwithstanding ...). I'm not convinced that small villages and rural areas should trump suburbs of mega-conurbations just because they exist. Essentially, that's what hatnotes are for. The dab itself should probably be split into places and names. Kbthompson (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the whole world doesn't revolve around London. When a topic has many disambigs, it's only reasonable to put every topic under the same standard. FWIW, when I look for Woodford, Greater Manchester, I expected it at this page. Why should this get priority? Majorly talk 15:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The London location isn't particuarly more notable than the other places known by that name on the disambiguation place. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When an article occupies the ambiguous base name, as is the case here, a fraction of that article's page views necessarily are in error; the magnitude of this error can be seen by comparing page views on the dab page. For example, Michael Jackson (disambiguation) had 157173 page views in 2009,[1] and Michael Jackson had 29288614:[2] the dab page got 1 view for every 200 views of the primary topic. (This ratio was pretty much constant, which suggests that 1 in 200 people reading about Michael Jackson the singer want to know about other people named Michael Jackson.) Now, Woodford (disambiguation) gets about 1 view for every 9 views of Woodford. It would appear that Woodford, London is not the primary topic. Furthermore, Woodford, London is one of a cluster of related articles, so it is even more likely that many of its page views are in error, the reader actually wanting another article in the cluster. Page views in 2009:
One common rule of thumb is that to qualify as the primary topic the most viewed article should have 10x the page views of the next most viewed article. The most viewed article above is Woodford Reserve, but it is not 10x more viewed than others. It is not much more used than any other topic. No primary topic here. --Una Smith (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woodford Reserve isn't actually known as Woodford. It it were, the links to Woodford and Woodford (disambiguation) would be much higher because of misdirected readers. It is listed as a "see also" purely because the name starts with Woodford. MRSC (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. On the other hand, from my experience fixing links to dab pages I would expect a substantial fraction of links to Woodford actually intend Woodford Reserve. I note also that Woodford Bridge is a redirect and Woodford Wells is a redlink. --Una Smith (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment [conflicted] let me get this clear, the dab page is referred to once for every nine views of Woodford? Demonstrating that readers have reached their primary objective on the first hit, so why are you supporting changing the status quo? Qualified Woodfords are not a reason for disambiguation; only places named "Woodford". None of those are as significant as this place. As to comparing with a whiskey, its proper name is "Woodford Reserve"; not any of its constituent parts. Qualified names should be mentioned on a dab page, but are not a reason for dab. The London location is notable for being the birthplace of William Morris and James Hilton; it is also notable for being the residence of Sylvia Pankhurst and two prime ministers: Churchill and Atlee ....; and a leader of the opposition - Lansbury. Kbthompson (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      It demonstrates the opposite: that in all likelihood many (perhaps even most) readers coming to Woodford are not looking for the article about Woodford, London. --Una Smith (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the stats you have presented do not support your argument. MRSC (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • [conflicted] Obviously, if they find the article they want - about the one in London (at Woodford, as they have previously), they have no incentive to go to the dab page; or are you arguing they give up? Woodford, London was only created when Majorly moved this article there. Kbthompson (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the other Woodfords has the length or richness of history, going right back to Domesday. Had Woodford emerged merely as an interwar suburb I might have been swayed, but it experienced growth much earlier and as such has a significant history and connection to notable figures. Of the list of Woodfords it is, by far, the most notable on this basis. MRSC (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{citation needed}}. Have you researched all the different Woodfords on the list, or are you just saying what you believe? Majorly talk 18:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find one in that list, of larger or even comparable size that dates back to 1086 I will give you a piece of Xmas candy. MRSC (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re None of the other Woodfords has the length or richness of history, going right back to Domesday. — the Woodford in existence then appears to have been a manor house, not the modern informal district called Woodford that is the topic of the article now at the page name Woodford. Both Woodford Green and Woodford Bridge predate this "Woodford". The name Woodford may be ancient, but it seems the Wikipedia article now claims the name, unqualified, has a relatively weak claim to it. --Una Smith (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • [conflicted] You mistake transient celebrity for notability; and none of that seems to have been considered notable by prior editors of the article - so, not even mentioned. The article on the place in Manchester doesn't even indicate a post code! I think the estate agent blurb (on prices) would be grossly unencyclopaedic in any article. If the 'significance' of the other places on the dab page were greater, then I would presume their articles would make the case - well, any case at all for their significance ... improvement of all these articles would be good! Kbthompson (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All this is irrelevant really - the question is whether or not a primary topic exists, which is where there is disagreement. It's not about the size or age of the place, but how often the page is used (views, links etc). Majorly talk 18:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A misunderstanding of disambiguation. If a place is older and has been the most sizeable for some time it has more interconnectivity with history and historical figures. This is shown in the wealth of source material that refers to Woodford and its inhabitants throughout history. MRSC (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The silliness of the my-Woodford's-better-than-your-Woodford-so-there discussion above brilliantly illustrates the folly of the quest for a "primary" topic. Amongst some editors in these discussions there seems to be some sort of a status issue attached to have "their" article in pole position, and that's as futile an argument as which TV game show is nicer to watch. (So gimme the remote now, or I'll hit myself and tell mummy you did it).
    Just disambiguate them, and let the reader decide according to their own interests. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be highlighting a divergence of views I did not realise existed. "disambiguate everything automatically" vs. "disambiguate only where absolutely necessary". I've always been of the view that our policies and guidelines tend towards the latter. I haven't seen anything to convince me to the contrary. Perhaps it comes down to personal preference. MRSC (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are setting up two false extremes. I do not advocate "disambiguate everything", and am quite happy that (for example) John Major is a primary topic. I'm also reasonably happy with the compromise contained in the general thrust of the guidelines, which is to disambiguate where there is no clear primary topic (not, as you falsely claim "only where absolutely necessary"). But arguing about the relative merits of one suburb versus another suburb and a long list of villages is a futile exercise which brings us back to the guidance at WP:DAB that "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic".
Where I differ from some interpretations of the guideline is that I think many of these discussions could be avoided by stating a clear principle of taking disambiguation as the default position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The above discussion indicates that the primary meaning of "Woodford" is a matter of debate, and therefore Woodford should be a dab page. I personally would consider the primary meaning of "Woodford" to be BAE Woodford, but I freely admit that's due to geographical and career biases; it just illustrates that the London suburb is not the obvious primary topic. Tevildo (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Given the amount of discussion and the number of uses, I fail to see how there is a possibility of any of these being the primary topic. First or oldest is not by policy or guideline primary. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in Woodford, London[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Woodford, London's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "vision_parish":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woodford is not in Essex[edit]

PlatinumClipper96 As you know, Woodford is not in Essex, WP:UKTOWNS says that historical counties go under the historical section and WP:UKCOUNTIES says that we speak about these in past tense. Please explain why you think this page should not follow the guidelines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "think this page should not follow the guidelines". Woodford is in the historic county of Essex, as well as east London and the ceremonial county/administrative area of Greater London. As I said when reverting you, WP:UKTOWNS does not state that "historical county belongs with history" just because it is a bullet point under a subheading of things to include called "History". Your edit also misleadingly implied historic/ancient counties were distinguished from other definitions of the counties in the time of the Becontree hundred. As I have explained to you on the Romford talk page, WP:UKCOUNTIES is guidance for county articles. At the moment, across talk pages, it seems you are more interested attacking me (and going through pages I have contributed to) than discussing the content. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:UKCOUNTIES, all mention must be in past tense. I quote from there: Editors must be mindful of fostering and/or introducing anachronism into former county articles. Use language that asserts past tense - We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. Continued use of the name of the county can be explained in the "Legacy" section. And also: fundamental part of this guide is to reaffirm the long established position that we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries.
You know it says this, because we have had this discussion elsewhere. You will also want to say that this guideline is about counties, so I will pre-empt that to say the guideline is actually about how to write about counties, and when we describe a town's historic relationship with its former county, we are, clearly, writing about counties. The guidelines are clear and your edit is in opposition to them. In wikivoice we use past tense to talk about the historic counties because, again, we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries. Why shouldn't this page follow the guidelines? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As we have discussed enough times elsewhere (with no response to my counterargument about this from you), WP:UKCOUNTIES is for county articles. Not sure why you have added "until 1865 it was in the historic county of Essex" - this is incorrect. It was in Essex by all means, including for administrative purposes, until 1965. Your new wording also fails to include the fact Essex is the historic county, in contrast to WP:UKTOWNS. I have reverted your bold edits per WP:BRD. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rather clearly, I would have thought, 1865 was a typo for 1965 (the lead being a summary of information on the page). Correcting it would have been more productive than reverting. Still, I have corrected it now as that was the reason for your revert. I have indeed answered your point about counties 2 or 3 times now. WP:UKCOUNTIES is a guideline about talking about counties. It is clear that We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries.. This is true in articles about the counties (e,g. Middlesex where you have reverted in defiance of that guideline) and it is true when talking about counties in other articles. There is no world of reason and common sense where one would say that what we don't say in wikivoice on one article can be said in wikivoice on another. If you disagree with the guidelines, your recourse is to an RFC on the guidelines themselves. Do not attempt to prosecute the case sporadically across article space. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, in your edit summary you said: "Restored wording includes historic county per WP:UKTOWNS." but actually you removed that wording, which I introduced. You replaced it with "ancient county" which is not the suggestion in WP:UKTOWNS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy - you are reverting reverts to your bold edits, in defiance of WP:BRD. You know the incorrect year was not the sole reason for this revert. This was made clear both here and in the edit summary. You are WP:EDITWARRING. As for the Middlesex article, I have only reverted two edits from one user. For pretty much all of that article's existence, wording has been "is a historic county", and therefore I would argue that the WP:COUNTIES line about tense does not reflect consensus. As I said on the Romford talk page, 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 previously proposed, 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) 20:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, it's the same thing. You have made edits that defy this suggestion altogether, removing any mention of historic county. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My edit reads: "Until 1965 it was in the historic county of Essex." Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for your revert was that I had typed 1865 instead of 1965. I thus edited in 1965, the correct information. It was not a revert, it was a correction based on what you stated in your edsum. My edit earlier today was also not a revert - it was a reformulation based on your stated objections to my previous edit. That is also what I have attempted elsewhere and other editors have attempted with you, and yet in every case you just revert. That approach is not very collegiate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also mentioned inclusion of the historic county in my edit summary as a reason for the revert, which I mistakenly thought you omitted. You have made edits across articles that remove mention of historic county altogether in defiance of WP:UKTOWNS guidelines. Your edit was a revert, as it reinstated your proposed wording in relation to the issue at hand. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical and social high point of East London[edit]

This will need to go in the main body of the piece somewhere. Either repeated from intro, or instead of. No strong views either way. MRSC (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woodford,_London&oldid=1210586853"