Talk:Walthamstow

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

North or East?[edit]

I'm not happy with........

There has been much dispute as to whether Walthamstow should be classified as being located in East London or North London[citation needed], as although it carries the E17 postcode, it has many of the characteristics of being situated in the North. Judging by maps of London, it is actually further north than other boroughs that carry the N_ postcode - namely Hackney. .

....now we all know that Hackney has an E8 postcode, and Homerton E9... it's only Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill that have the N16. It is quite clear that Walthamstow is "East London" so can we please delete this ?? --IsarSteve 23:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. could somebody explain what many of the characteristics of being situated in the North means.

Reworded it. It was certainly discussed amongst non-Walthamstow people whether it should be part of North London, but the River Lea boundary qualifies it as East London, it's part of Essex not Middlesex. ByteofKnowledge 19:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Walthamstow was originally in the abandoned NE sector of the London postal district, as was Hackney. I still don't think postcodes really decide if a place is East or North London. Also, having been part of Middlesex is not really a deciding factor of 'northness', Stepney and Bethnal Green were in Middlesex and certainly would only be considered north London in the sense of not south of the river. These locations are all relative to some other place really. MRSC • Talk 09:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any doubt from the people who were born here that this is east London Jannahred (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walthamstow is in North East London and should be shown as such. The reference point isn't whether residents think they are in East London, nor what the post code it is it is where it sits on a compass.

If you were to describe its location to someone who didn't know London at all the best geographical description is to say NE London. This page needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E17phil (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'E or NE?'

I favour East, I think it has a better case – but there’s no definitive or ‘correct’ answer. We can look at it in terms of area\place and also compass points.

The ‘East’ is an established place\area in the same way as North London and other areas. I don’t think it could be argued that Walthamstow is anything other than ‘East’ in that respect. You rarely hear the NE of London spoken of a place in its own right, it’s typically E or N etc.

In terms of compass points, yes certainly it’s in the NE, but you could also say (less specifically) that it’s the E or the N. Indeed E London (the place) could be described as the NE of London.

There’s no definitive answer but I would add the recently added link to sub-regions intended to support the NE point of view, actually does the reverse and supports the view that Walthamstow is in the E.

East London clearly includes Waltham Forest in the description and supporting information. Maybe challenge that page, rather than Walthamstow? Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walthamstow market section[edit]

In my opinion, the section added by an anon on Walthamstow market should be deleted, or at least radically amended. It reads like an incoherent entry from a tourist brochure and is full of trivia. I'd rather see the opinions of others before taking an axe to it myself. --Lancevortex 10:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The market is important, but I agree that the section is full of trivia and more like a tourist guide. Please edit it down. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redcountess and I are also working on extending the article with references, which is something it's not so hot on at present. We have a very nice local history book I need to scan a pile of ancient maps and so on from - David Gerard 18:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a go at removing some of the bumph from the section on the market and shops. redcountess 18:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a whole story about the recent redevelopment of the town centre, but as a newcomer to Wikipedia I may not be the person to write it. Main features: 1. The Sainsburys development and the Mall lack architectural merit but are arguably what keeps the street market viable. 2. Walthamstow Town Square, designed by Building Design Partnership, see analysis document from CABE [1] 3. The original proposal for the corner development was intended to be a large modern library [2]. In March 2004 the site was cleared but in October the same year the council decided not to proceed with the new library and consequently, not to proceed with plans for a performing arts centre in the existing library building. [3]. After this surprise climbdown the site has been left flattened and the council remain undecided. [4] 4. The old library building was successfully refurbished and extended. ProfDEH (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The market is open 5 days a week, not 6, being closed sunday and monday. Jannahred (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I waited for a response and as there was non, I edited the article myself, hope that's ok! --Jannahred (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

What is the policy behind the 'location', in particular the GPS coordinates. The numbers given are way down next to Leyton Orient football ground, hardly central for Waltham Forest, and not even in Walthamstow. The Town Hall be a better bet for marking the town's location, at approximately 51.591000,-0.013500 (sitting five time zones away using Google Maps). ByteofKnowledge 13:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objections so I changed it to the above suggested location. ByteofKnowledge 20:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian[edit]

Also on the subject of location, perhaps a note about the meridian plaque on Wood Street would be a good addition if it is still there. I think it is approximately at 51.583500 n, 0 w. ByteofKnowledge 13:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I see it less than 6 months ago, so I assume it is still there. (Unsigned, Spiderpop)

Sure I seen one on Forest Road past the Wood Street opening going towards Woodford, between 1 to 2 months ago, not sure about Wood Street Jannahred (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Notable residents[edit]

I had never heard of Lethal Bizzle so I looked him up. He is a rap artist and judging by 425,000 results on Google clearly well known. Just shows. I put the Telegraph reference in, but it's just an opinion piece, if anyone thinks that is inappropriate feel free to delete it or move it here. There is a response to David Cameron's comments about LB here ProfDEH (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this section needs splitting into properly notable and also-rans. Who is David Tibet for example? Yes he is on Wikipedia, but try a Google search. It turns out "Tibet is the guiding force of paramusical Christian Apocalyptic group CURRENT NINETY THREE". Just not in the same league as the true notables on the list: Disraeli, William Morris, Vivian Stanshall. The article previously had a media section and I suggest that is needed for the footballers, bass players and soap actors? ProfDEH (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is always a bugbear - but it should at least be someone 'most' people would have heard of; and say to themselves 'yes, a former prime minister - that is notable' ... The relative lack of notability in the linked article can be dealt with by {{PROD}}ing the article.
For some other boroughs, there's been a move towards a centralised list that can be better controlled for notability and the individuals link to the district actually being referenced to some independent source - see List of people from Southwark for what is probably the best example. Those lists are divided by arena of notability - so, politicians are separate from RAP artists! HTH Kbthompson (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's an unsorted - and unref'd list at List of people from Waltham Forest. Kbthompson (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long is the market?[edit]

Traditionally the market is a mile long, but that is not an accurate measurement. The Ordnance Survey map has a 1 km grid and the market street, measured against the grid, is about 1.1 km (0.68 miles). User:Northmetpit changed the figure from 1.2 km to 0.56km which does not see right. Does anyone have an accurate way of measuring? ProfDEH (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The market doesn't quite extend to the ends of the High Street. Measuring it using Google Earth I make it 0.9 - 0.95 km. I would suggest rounding it up to 1km. It's certainly no longer than that. Lancevortex (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the market would extend to the ends, if there were enough stalls, this is surely something that will alter according to whether more people apply for or give up their stalls and therefore how can you only give one measurement? Jannahred (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's about 1km, surely that's accurate enough? Even if, at some unspecified time in the future, it stretches to the ends, it's still going to be about 1km give or take a few tens of metres. Lancevortex (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should not have those mini stalls in the market. Please comment? comment added by Zyree (talk

Walthamstow in film and television[edit]

The entries in this section strike me as being particularly un-noteworthy. Are they worth keeping? Lancevortex (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, useless trivia - contrary to Wiki guidelines. It's not as if Walthamstow was a particularly popular location for filming. ProfDEH (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to be bold and have deleted the entire section. Lancevortex (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HHhhmm did we get a choice??? I think it's usual to add these to the piece, and maybe partly so people can look out for those things. I have been reading this page as I used to live in this area, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harringay#Historical_outline, I prefer the way it's done to our area, seems more well thought out and researched. Maybe it's been going longer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannahred (talk • contribs) 00:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I forgot to sign the last comment Jannahred (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date of incorporation[edit]

The article notes 1926 as being the date of incorporation as a municipal borough - the date is 1929 as referenced in the 8th edition of the Borough Official Guide, by George Bosworth, published by the Council in 1935. Mikeya (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Youngs gives it as 1926 (used as a source for Vision of Britain), but it appears the charter was delayed until 1929 because of action by the council in the General Strike. MRSC (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Walthamstow. 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 07:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article need a gallery?[edit]

The article is a bit of a mess, maybe I will try to edit the text a bit over the holiday and try to find some better images to replace the ones that look like they were taken on a Nokia brickphone circe 2000. It might be a good idea too, to remove the gallery altogether and just have images that relate to the text. I think that would be in line with guidelines. And while I'm at it, I made all the images a standard thumb size i.e. no pixel size specified, so they all line up nicely but the actual size is controlled by the user's preference. I'm not sure which is right but having some of each wasn't working. Views? ProfDEH (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Discussion[edit]

Merging Upper Walthamstow into Walthamstow
The only source on Upper Walthamstow currently is for the OS grid reference, it reads like WP:NOTTRAVEL and wasn't adding anything not covered in the main Walthamstow article. It seems unlikely that there is any WP:SIGCOV of Upper Walthamstow specifically that isn't about Walthamstow in general unlike say, The Village or Wood St each of which are entities in their own right. Redirecting to Walthamstow#Geography_and_locale would make make it easier to maintain NPOV encyclopaedic coverage. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The area is clearly part of Walthamstow and lacks any distinguishing features that warrant separate treatment. As far as I can see the article contains no useful information. ProfDEH (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've gone ahead with an RD since there wasn't much to be copied over. --Paul ❬talk❭ 09:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waltham Forest not Essex[edit]

Walthamstow is in London and Waltham Forest. Having Essex in the first sentence is misleading and confusing. I have moved the historic areas to the second paragraph (as with Leyton, Leytonstone, Wanstead and Chingford). An editor is obsessed with having historic Essex in the first sentence of the lede... let's stick with the simplest and current: London + Borough. Then have a whole paragraph on the history? We wouldn't open an article on Soho with "Henry VII's hunting park in Lundenwic, in the historic county of Middlesex" when it is obviously an area of the West End of London that adjoins Oxford Street and China Town Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:PlatinumClipper96 Please discuss your persistent edits to delete the London Borough and insert HC of Essex. This talk topic has been open since August. Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonnyspeed20, how was I supposed to have been aware of this talk page topic? You didn't ping me - your only reference to me was describing me as "an editor". You are fully aware that I do not "delete the London Borough", yet you keep claiming in edit summaries and in talk pages that this is the case. In fact, my edits to this article mention the borough, and the fact Walthamstow is its administrative centre, first thing in a lead paragraph. I have discussed my edits with you on multiple talk pages - we're going round in circles. My edits are in full compliance with the guidelines. Whether the historic counties have been abolished or not, saying a place "is in the ceremonial county of x and the historic county of x" is not incorrect or misleading. It certainly isn't "vandalism", as you keep claiming on edit summaries. I ask that you stop this. As for the points you made above, mentioning a place's location within a historic county is nothing like referring to Soho as being part of a "hunting park in Lundenwic". Bearing in mind the fact London is split between historic counties, I fail to see how mentioning this alongside the fact it is in east London (which is mentioned first, before any other info), and the ceremonial county of Greater London which is used for present local government purposes, is "misleading and confusing". PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No progress here. Will reinstate the info removed by Jonnyspeed20. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When HC is in the information box, it can be considered important. Maybe you can find a way of not deleting the London Borough? 86.14.189.55 (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works - the info is important enough for the guidelines to say historic county info should be mentioned. Whether it's an infobox parameter or not is irrelevant. The borough was not deleted. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Town, district, suburb[edit]

LDas12345 please could you explain why you are changing all mention of Walthamstow as a town to be either a district or suburb? It would be useful to understand the reasoning. Please could you also use edit summaries to describe what you are doing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted the same edit back in again. This is edit warring. Please self revert and discuss here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sirfurboy, the reason I changed Walthamstow from being a town to a suburb is because it really is a suburb of London. It's no longer a settlement of its right anymore and many mentions of Walthamstow in the media like on videos or articles etc mention it as either a "suburb" or a "neighbourhood".
I also think it's because Walthamstow in London is in the city's postcode, so I thought as it is part of the city boundaries then it will just be a London suburb unlike other Eastern Greater London areas like Romford or Ilford. LDas12345 (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. We would need to follow what sources say about Walthamstow, so if they are all calling it a suburb, that would be a good reason to make the change. However I don't see this. Some sources may speak of it as a suburb, others as an urban area, but actually there are a lot calling it a town. Most, I believe. Take newspapers for instance. Here is one I found at random: It will draw together existing services, such as the X140 and X26 that serve Heathrow, with proposed new orbital routes linking town centres such as Harrow and North Finchley, and North Finchley with Walthamstow - Evening Standard 28 March 2023. Which would all be very well, but is it cherry picked? No. A search on Newspapers.com shows thousands of mentions of Walthamstow town every year. A lot are not relevant, but it is easy to show that Walthamstow is very commonly referred to as a town. It is referred to this way in books too, and then you have publications like this [5], a consultation report specifically talking about the town centre. London is made up of many such towns. Walthamstow has a town hall (now called Waltham Forest Town Hall) and town centre. The district is Waltham Forest, and post towns do not map exactly to towns. I think town is best, suburb and district are wrong, urban area is too vague. This will apply for many other of London's towns. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no articles or media videos that state Walthamstow as a "town" of Greater London but either as a suburb or a neighbourhood. LDas12345 (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally just gave you one. Here are more. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] and I could go on and on. I also found thousands of newspaper articles referring to it as a town. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Google research is not brilliant for lots of reasons, but all the same, I googled [13] to get a rough count of pages that have "Walthamstow is a town" on them whilst attempting to remove wikipedia clones by excluding our wording. That only gives about 866 hits, and, to be clear, many of those would be self published sources. It is indicative though. Especially when compared with the search for "Walthamstow is a suburb".[14] Five hits and one of those is for a location in Kabul. Meanwhile "Walthamstow is a neighbourhood" [15] yields just 4 hits and one of those actually says "Walthamstow is a neighbourhood orientated town". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed[edit]

Is it necessary to note that a citation is needed when the citation is on the page referenced? For example,

You can verify info on Steve Bell by clicking on "Steve Bell (cartoonist)" and that will erase the need for the citation. If the external citation page changes, then every Wikipedia page that uses the reference will also need to change, which isn't ideal. StewE17 (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great question. The answer is yes, it is, because Wikipedia is never a source for Wikipedia, and we cannot rely on that information remaining on that page. If it is found to be in error there, we would then have no way to find and fix pages relying on errant information. However, where the information on the linked page is itself backed by a suitable citation, you can certainly copy the citation from that page to this one (ideally stating in the edsum you are doing that per WP:COPYWITHIN). Personally I always try to look at linked pages before adding a citation needed template to do just that. Often the linked pages don't source the information either so the citation needed goes on. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that in this example, Steve Bell's bio is referenced to an article in the Guardian[1] which does not actually tell us where he was born, so it is unreferenced there too. I have added a citation needed template. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bell, Steve (25 May 2011). "Steve Bell: 'You must discover the character behind the face'". The Guardian. Retrieved 18 July 2020.

Unnecessary?[edit]

Sirfurboy, how is it unnecessary to mention the diversity of Walthamstow? it's true that East London is ethnically diverse. 2A02:C7C:B459:F500:3C2B:C231:C7EF:D921 (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessary because it is inserted into a paragraph that already describes the ethnic mix. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walthamstow&oldid=1218948520"