Talk:Beckenham

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

A poor effort![edit]

I really cannot believe that this is the best that can be done for Beckenham! Was the river named after the town - or does it just mean stream? Following a rapid "history", which isn't even given a heading, it is simply a series of lists which give little or no feel for the place itself. Taking each paragraph:

  • Nearest places: I never quite see the reason for this. With such a built-up area, it is simply not much help. In addition, some of those listed here give no idea just how near they are. Catford is one: yet Bellingham, which is actually nearer, is not included. Surely some thought must be taken to see that the nearness of a place reflects the ease of access to it. It is possible that the most important thing is that it is almost completely part of "greater" Bromley, and the other places are immaterial.
  • Nearest railway stations: Beckenham Junction is located near the town centre: OK. Radially, the next stations are: New Beckenham, Kent House, Clock House, Shortlands, and Ravensbourne. Beckenham Hill and Birkbeck are beyond; why not Elmers End and Eden Park? This is not using logic, just a quick look at the map; again, for what purpose?
  • Beckenham today: Wow! three sports clubs and a speakers club! There isn't even any text to suggest there might be a little more to say about the town.
  • Notable people: OK, although perhaps too jumbled up - historical, pop, etc etc
  • References in pop culture: surely there must be some references in other genre? literature? Daniel Defoe & William Cobbett both wrote about it.
  • Notable places: OK, so some of these have their own article, but surely those that do not could be included in this article? Even the entries here could have had an explanatory note beside each.

Altogether, a thoroughly unsatisfactory experience. I wish I had time to do more, but I don't know enough about Beckenham - and this article tells me nothing more!! Peter Shearan 19:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)5.68.59.87 (talk)§§5.68.59.87 (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).==Notable people== I have put together a new article listing all those noted in the "What links here" side reference. The note here simply refers to some of them: there were over sixty. Three names have been omitted from those originally shown: the article about each one shows no connection with Beckenham. Perhaps someone could check - have they a connection?:[reply]

If they have, then the individual articles should be amended too Peter Shearan (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

I have now completed this as far as I can: I only have a little personal knowledge of the town. I hope others can now tackle additional information, using the outline I have now set down. Peter Shearan (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beckenham. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence, grammar and fact[edit]

The lead sentence was changed again. It is the same alteration constantly made to many articles. My comment on reversal is here, not in the edit tag. - Undid revision 1122948130 by Sirfurboy (talk)This isn't about whether the HC are extant entities, it is simply about grammar and the level of understanding of readers. The original statement you have changed is factually correct, whether HC currently exist or not is not relevant, so there is no need to change it. Remember, this is an encyclopedia not a tabloid - we assume a certain level of intelligence of the average reader. The issue should not be about present or past but whether the place's connection to the historic county is strong enough to warrant inclusion at the start of the lead. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a typo in that edit. Is that the grammar issue? Usually one simply corrects the typo rather than reverting the edit. I shall attempt a new formulation, but note we need to summarise what the page actually says, which is that it was in Kent until 1965 when it became a London Borough. Leads should summarise the main, not contradict it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I mean: it does not contradict anything. The problem is certain editors misunderstand English and also cannot grasp that a place can be defined as being in more than one area. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As we have discussed elsewhere, it is clear that guidelines and editor consensus is that in wikivoice we do not assert the minority view that historical counties still exist within their old borders. The act of Beckenham coming under the ceremonial county and administrative control of Greater London means it is no longer in the county of Kent. I understand that you disagree, but also that you are aware of the guideline. If you would like to open an RFC on the guideline, we can discuss the issue there, but as long as the guideline remains, it is correct that pages written in wikivoice do say that the place was in one county and is now in the other. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

See here [1] Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

improvements?[edit]

Still minimal even though I've edited some aspects. Our more comprehensive history of beckenham runs to about 500 pages of pdf doc so not suitable for repeating here but now in webpage format on www.beckenhamplaceparkfriends.org.uk history links Which is still far from being a complete account. various local historians have produced books with collections of photographs etc etc. I'll add some more edits soon. (jan 2023) -- unsigned comment left by Novafact 14:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I am afraid these edits are problematic, adding unsourced content and a few other issues. I don't want to revert the lot, as you clearly put effort into it, so will add some templates and fix a couple of issues. If we cannot find reliable sources for the material, however, then it will have to go (and another editor may revert it at any point). Also, please don't mark edits as minor when adding significant content. Minor edits are for typos or similar uncontroversial small edits. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beckenham&oldid=1206213317"