Talk:Croydon/Archive 1

Split?

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 29 to May 6 2004, consensus was to redirect to London Borough of Croydon. Discussion:

There is already a much better article London Borough of Croydon. Any new items should go into that one. The contents of Croydon is nonsense.--Dieter Simon 01:05, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I turned it into a redirect. The content was a perfectly fair game for this. Mikkalai 03:04, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Keep as redirect. Nothing to merge. Incidentally, does anyone know why the update link ain't working? I must be missing something, it looks OK to me but gives me a bad page title diagnostic when I try it. Andrewa 10:34, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Please don't list obvious redirect/merging candidates. Do the merging instead. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:08, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Croydon as a redirect. I think there is a strong need to have a page on the town of Croydon - both historically and even currently (and I grew up near there) there has always been a sense of Croydon town. Maybe as a compromise make that page a redirect to the London Borough of Croydon and put the contents up at Croydon, London, Croydon town or something. I agree it needs more content - I can always dig up some of the town's history and put it there (the railway in particular has some stuff). Timrollpickering 00:27, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Since this discussion took place, Croydon and London Borough of Croydon did eventually split to describe the central town and the wider area and institutions respectively. Mtiedemann 10:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Corporation of Croydon

This designation appears on part of the Croydon Clocktower building: how does it relate to local government? As there is also the Corporation of London there should be a line or two in Corporation on the subject (with a redirect as appropriate).

Jackiespeel 17:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

'Corporation' in this case basically means 'Croydon Council'. As I understand it, Corporation referred to the institution as a whole, in particular the staff and services, whereas the Council meant specifically the elected councillors. This may be too crude a distinction and I am not sure these terms were used outside large metropolitan boroughs. Mtiedemann 00:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

During the time Croydon was a municipal borough (1883-1889) the governing body would be known as a municipal corporation. MRSC 09:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Croydon, United Kingdom → Croydon – Page originally moved without discussion, affecting hundreds of other pages. The UK Croydon is by far the largest, earliest and best-known judging by Google hits and WP articles. There is already a Croydon (disambiguation) to point to others. Mtiedemann 10:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support move. I would guess that this Croydon is the original one as well as the principal one. Perhaps as important, having simply "Croydon" as the article name would be consistent with many other places in London - e.g., Bromley, Ealing. (One that doesn't follow that convention is Sutton, but that's because there are very many other prominent Suttons elsewhere.) --A bit iffy 10:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments just click edit and add please do not change or delete any of the comments already there. Please leave the date you wrote it and your age name is optional

I've moved this back to Croydon as a speedy move - any major page like this should always be discussed before changing it to a dab page. — sjorford++ 13:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think History of Croydon should be left in the section of Croydon because anyone doing a project like I am at the moment with school wants all the information of Croydon in the same place. Katie x<3 12 years old 18th April 2009

City?

I've removed reference to Croydon being considered a city as its dubious at best. It is the larger London Borough of Croydon that has applied for city status so if anywhere should be noted as "city like" it should be that entity. That aside, Croydon is part of the general urban sprawl of London, it really isn't a city by any definition. A "metropolitan" or "suburban" centre would be a more accurate description. MRSC 12:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Croydon has actually applied for City status a number of times - it narrowly missed getting the last grant of a City charter from the Queen.81.179.94.215 23:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Croydonian

However, it was the London Borough of Croydon, not Croydon that applied for city status. MRSC • Talk 22:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Is Croydon generally understood to be a suburb of London, or a town separate from London? I'd lean towards the former (it's physically contiguous with London and administratively treated as part of it) but maybe there's room for both views. Lfh 18:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Croydon is a London Borough as is stated in the article, yes it is a suburb of London, and is one of the largest urban centres within Greater London. Over the years it has almost taken on an identity of its own outside Central London which you realise as you arrive there. Dieter Simon 01:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Croydon is one of a limited number of major centres in Outer London. As such, it is a highly connected part of the conurbation, not at all distinct. MRSC • Talk 22:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Qualitative Information

There is a need for qualitative information about Croydon, its housing, schools, known corruption etc. from local experts

Monophysite 16:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think these things would be better covered from a borough-wide perspective in the London Borough of Croydon article. However, that article does seem rather light on on those aspects.--A bit iffy 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Central Croydon, merge?

Should we merge these Croydon articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pafcool2 (talk • contribs)

Discussion is taking place on Talk:Central Croydon.--A bit iffy 08:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

LB Croydon History

Should'nt most of the history on this page be on the London Borogh of Croydon page? I mean Addington Palace is not situated in Croydon. Pafcool2 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are saying here. Addington Palace is in Croydon, as are Addington village and Forestdale. Mind you I could never see the dichotomy of two separate articles Croydon and London Borough of Croydon. I think someone just wanted to create their own separate article so they could add it to their own "basket". Dieter Simon 23:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

They have separate articles because they're different things. London boroughs are often named after one particular district within them, but that is no reason to merge the articles - we have Islington and London Borough of Islington, Wandsworth and London Borough of Wandsworth etc. Lfh 17:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is they are not different things at all. Tell me where exactly the distinction is between "Croydon" and "London Borough of Croydon". Where exactly does Croydon finish and London Borough of C. start, or what is the border-line between the two? Why do we have two lists of well-known or distinguished people? It all leads to absurdity and confusion. I doubt whether anyone living in Selhurst, Addington or Shirley think of themselves as living any less in Croydon than in the L. B. of Croydon. They think of themselves as Croydonians, full stop. The local political scene can just as well be accommodated in the one article for each borough. The same applies to Islington and L. B. of Islington, and all the other London Boroughs. To have two articles for each borough just seems to me to bump up the numbers of articles at all costs. Dieter Simon 23:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm working by analogy with the rest of London here. It's full of distinct neighborhoods, some of which have given their names to larger boroughs but still have their own articles. Clerkenwell and Islington are distinct areas even though both are in the London Borough of Islington. So it's not "two articles for each borough", but one article for each of two different things - borough and district. I could give countless more examples. But I'm not familiar with Croydon, and if you can show that the borough is coterminous with common opinion on what "Croydon" is as an area, there might be a case for merging them (I'm not the one who separated them). Lfh 07:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you've all misunderstood me! What i'm trying to say is that the sections on Addington Palace and etc. are not in where this article describes. Take for instance the section on Tramlink stops in Croydon, it does'nt mean all the stations in the borough of Croydon just ones in the town of Croydon. Because even though Croydon is also the name of the borough it does'nt make it the article about all the stuff in the borough! The Kenley article would'nt say about the history of Shirley Windmills, will it, well this is exactly the same for what i'm saying. The thing is not in the geography of this article. Addington Village is not in Croydon, it's in the London Borough of Croydon, not the town of Croydon. I hope you now understand what i'm stating (Sorry for the late response). Pafcool2 21:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, we have eight articles for Croydon

Let me put this into perspective for a minute. We have:

• London Borough of Croydon
• Croydon
• Croydon South (historic UK Parliament constituency)
• Croydon South (UK Parliament constituency)
• South Croydon
• Croydon North (UK Parliament constituency)
• Croydon Central (UK Parliament constituency)

These are only the articles I have been able to glean at a moment's notice. This is absolute madness, as only the Central Croydon article is linked to any of the others as far as I can see. So, apart from the warning also in the Central Croydon article that there is the Croydon Central Parliamentary article we live in total ignorance of any of the other articles, unless we already know what we are looking for. Just how far is this absurdity going to extend? Dieter Simon 00:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We also have West Croydon, making it nine. Has anyone ever thought of South-West Croydon or North-North-West Croydon? It should make riveting reading. Dieter Simon 01:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

To be fair West & South are distinct locals, signposted as such on local road signs. However if you really want North-by-North West Croydon I can oblige :-). Shall we go ahead and merge as Croydon should cover the town centre, the London Borough just that. It might be worth merging the two Croydon South parliament articles as well. Regan123 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I take you point here, West and South Croydon may be distinct locales but where does South Croydon end, Central Croydon start and end and West Croydon start. Whoever you ask will give you a different answer, depending on where they believe they are within the Croydon area (or any other town, come to think of it). When I used to live in lodgings in Selsdon many years ago, my landlady insisted Selsdon was in South Croydon and the address should read "Selsdon, South Croydon" (in those days we still used to listen to what our landladies said). Well, even an old die-hard such as myself would have my doubts about that now. But you see the problem really is, where for example does South Croydon start, at High Street, South End or Brighton Road? It's anybody's guess, you would find as many people plumping for any of the three localities. Postcodes don't help you , nor phonebooks. It's a matter of you pays your money and takes your choice.

That's why I think it would be better to include all points of the compass in one article, Croydon, maybe or even L. B. of Croydon. That way, you don't have that decision to make, and don't have to accommodate people forever who claim differently from what we decide.

I honestly believe, we haven't had any real queries so far because people just weren't aware there were all those nine different articles about Croydon whatever in existence because they weren't linked to one another (which they should have been). I didn't know, for one! I'd like to believe this was through sheer oversight and not omitted deliberately in order to stop all queries in their track. Anyway, hopefully people will discuss this. Dieter Simon 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have copied this thread from the Central Croydon talk page, as I think it does belong to this talk page as well. Dieter Simon 23:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK got me there, I replied there, now transferred here, and ref'd there Kbthompson

Generally speaking, there is an article for a London borough and the distinct districts within that borough. Parliamentary districts and historic districts are kept separate, mainly because the people who write them like to consider they live in a different world (that's a joke, honest). If you truly believe that there is no difference between the sub-divisions of Croydon, then feel free to combine them - mark them for merge and see if anyone complains. To some people these differences matter. Certainly articles should be linked, either through the text, or through templates. The trick is to find a level of division of articles that reflects the way people feel about a place. HTH Kbthompson 23:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading, it is already proposed that Croydon and Central Croydon be merged. That leaves the London Borough of Croydon for boro' wide issues; Croydon and South Croydon as entities that appear in the boro' navigation template. The current parliamentary constituencies are referred to in each place template, and the footer boro' templates. The historic parliamentary articles should be linked to in text, as should the items ref'd in a template. It works in most other boro's, but fiddling with the districts can be appropriate for the local situation. Kbthompson 00:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The point I was making was that it is such a nebulous idea where one part of a town starts and another ends. Everyone has a different idea about that, how can one be sure one is talking about the same thing as someone else is, for the above reasons I gave. That's why I think North, South, East and West should go into one article. Dieter Simon 00:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully, but generally speaking, if it's a distinct settlement, it grew from a historic core, say even a cluster of houses on a 1700s map. It's only latterly that these things have merged into the London miasma. It's a problem common to most of London. I tend to look back for clues, but the important thing is whether there is anything distinctive about the modern settlement. Maybe there isn't. Let the merge between Croydon and Central Croydon go through, and then see if there's any further merging needed. HTH Kbthompson 10:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Central Croydon is gone, hooray. Now, how about vaporizing South Croydon? It doesn't have any validity as a place - or, if it does, so does West Purley as opposed to East Purley, as any estate agent will tell you. But that doesn't justify a separate Wikipedia entry. Patrick Neylan 20:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re notable people of Croydon

Please make sure notable people of Croydon in fact had close connections with the town. Have reverted four names: Richard Briers was born in Raynes Park or Merton, not in Croydon; Trevor Goddard was born in Natal, South Africa; Susie Amy was born in London and raised in Surrey; Michael Mackmie have removed as red link. Let us be precise about names, they were either born in Croydon or have/had close connections with the town or they don't. If so, please substantiate by citing sources. In neither of the four names could I find connections on the Web. Re-enter with sources. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cannot we just delete the whole section as it has got out of hand? I've removed BRIT school alumni and people who lived in suburbs of the borough. At Stoke-on-Trent I prosed the most notable and put a link into the category which has solved the problems of continual additions. Regan123 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, what, D. H. Lawrence not connected with Croydon? We will have to make sure that household names must remain on the list. Ian Wright, one-time Crystal Palace player who went on to bigger and better things, but who also lived in Shirley; Will Hay, the comic actor who scanned the skies with his telescope in his Norbury house? It's not a question of things getting out of hand, did well-known people live in Croydon or didn't they? If they didn't, they don't belong here, if they did they do, IMHO . I am sorry Regan123, but that's what I believe. What we have to watch is our unregistered friend working in umpteen seemingly unconnected names into the list. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify I am not talking about removing notable people altogether, but working in to the prose the most important ones. Lists tend to be easily edited by many people, whereas prose seems to resolve these IP additions - if we're not careful we end up with hundreds of people . As to some of the removals, if they lived in South Norwood (eg.) then they go onto the South Norwood article. They may have a place on the London Borough of Croydon article though. Regan123 (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do take your point here. However, it is the old problem with lists, wherever there is a list we end up with a free-for-all. Personally, I think lists are a pain, I don't think we should have them. You can never limit them, they are waste of time for people trying to keep them clean from what they believe doesn't belong into them. Does it really matter whether so-and-so once lived here? The point is, unless they did something that altered the town, their houses very often don't exist any more anyway, so how are people who consult this encyclopaedia to know where exactly they lived. Unless you can work their names into the general text, forget it, get rid of the list. Dieter Simon (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, which is what I did at Stoke-on-Trent. Oh well, another one for the list... Regan123 (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Another point as to your suggestion, Regan123, to have a list for every part of Croydon. If they felt so inclined, would they know all the areas of Croydon? Why should they look for South Norwood if they don't know South Norwood is part of Croydon, do they have to look through both the Croydon as well as the London Borough of Croydon articles before they realise there is such a part of the town to be able to look at that individual list? Whereas, if you are going to have a list, why not see it in the main Croydon article? This is where different philosophies come in. As you said first, let the well-knowns be worked into the text. After all anybody can enter any old body into a cheap, quickly-knocked-up list, without having to do much work on it. Hope you don't mind my afterthought. I am Sorry, I am probably making too much of it. (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Dieter Simon (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

History Section & Croydon's early transport links

The entire history section and the sub-section for Croydon's early transport links, is surely vast enough to warrent a page dedicated to it`s self, moving both sections to a new page called History of Croydon. Also think the Economy of Croydon partially should be brought into the Croydon page. --Rockybiggs (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. We keep splitting up organically perfectly good articles, which then end up in pieces all over the place. We should think of the potential uninitiated readers. They don't want to flit all over the place just to read articles which inherently should belong together. Someone has already done that to "notable people" of Croydon, now you want to do the same to the transport section. Do you know, this is going to kill off Wikipedia in the not too distant future, because we can't leave well enough alone. There are bits and pieces all over the place, while other encyclopaedias are able to manage to keep their articles together. The town of Croydon has articles all over, be it the London Borough of Croydon, South Croydon, West Croydon, articles all of which are referring to the same entity, namely Croydon. While certain subjects do stand on their own, such as Croydon Airport, after all it was once the airport for the whole of London, and possibly Purley Way, because it has significance all of its own, I do fail to see why integral parts of the town as cited above should be separated. The only question that springs to mind is, where will it all end? I was going to be facetious about all this, thinking that someone will be writing about North End, Croydon. Do you know what, someone has beaten me to it witha separate article: North End, Croydon. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

V-1 flying bomb

First of all, there is the Wikipedia article V-1 flying bomb, which should tell you all about it. V-1s have never been called cruise missiles in Britain, where most of them fell after all. Cruise missiles did not exist in those days. To call it "cruise missile" would be totally anachronistic for the above. What you are introducing is misleading. what ever encyclopaedia entry you are quoting. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Steady on and please assume good faith. Of course 'V-1 flying bomb' is a perfectly acceptable phrase to use here, as it is the colloquial name for the weapon, rather than the technical term. It was a cruise missile, and is described as such in the article V-1 flying bomb, which is why I described it as such. By contrast, the V-2 was a rocket rather than a cruise missile, and we also describe it as such in the wikipedia article on it. Let's be consistent, referring to the two weapons by their colloquial names OR their encyclopedic definitions. Am happy to keep V-1 as flying bomb, but in that case let's describe the V-2 by its colloquial name as well. Chumchum7 (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I a bit harsh? I am sorry, but what I probably should have said is, to call it a "V-1 cruise missile" to an English person who has lived through the air raids during later parts of World War Two would probably be most surprising, to say the least, because "flying bomb" is the name by which they got to know the hell-fire machine in their experience and with which they grew up with in later discussions of it. It is, in fact, the name by which any English newspaper would refer to it, unless they wanted to make themselves sound ridiculous (to a British reader, of course). What the American reader makes of it, is probably an entirely different matter, but it still should be recognized that the weapon has always been known traditionally as "flying bomb" and to call it "V-1 cruise missile" would indeed be an anachronism, on the lines of a 1930s' "analogue wristwatch", as the term didn't exist in those days.Dieter Simon (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, yes I found your tone a bit harsh but I haven't taken offence and I'm sure you meant well. I try to remind myself about WP:Civility and WP:Wikilove myself, policies which do help avoid lengthy misunderstandings. Also, I think you may be jumping to the assumption that I'm not British and that therefore my edits come from lack of knowledge. But I happen to know what I am talking about in this case. Really this all started with your revert "Cruise missiles in W.W.II ? I don't think so" which can be answered with the opening sentence of the V-1 flying bomb article: "The Fieseler Fi 103, better known as the V-1 'Buzz Bomb', (German: Vergeltungswaffe 1, retaliation weapon), also colloquially known in Britain as the 'Doodlebug' and (chiefly in London) the 'Arse-alight' - a reference to the flame of the engine, was an early, jet-powered cruise missile used by the Germans during World War II." So you see I was accurately referring to it as a cruise missile, I wasn't naming it as the 'V-1 cruise missile'. Can you see the difference? Chumchum7 (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this weakness in V-1 flying bomb. I've adjusted it accordingly, which might help other editors avoid using the term "cruise missile" in contexts in which it appears to the general reader so glaringly anachronistic that it could temporarily cause the reader to doubt Wikipedia's accuracy rather than continue to be informed about the article's subject. NebY (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have taken your comments on board, Chumchum, and do apologize once more. What appears to be robustness in one's reply is not necessarily intended as rudeness. I have probably had too many occasions in the past when other people told me where to get off. In the end one tries to respond forcefully, obviously wrongly so in our discussion.

Thank you also Neby, for your edit on the V-1 article. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Toponymy

There's no mileage in saying that anything other than an Anglo-Saxon place name origin is realistic. The area is stuffed full of Anglo-Saxon place-names and this must be the primary assumption unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. Just to visit them one by one: 1. Celtic origin - very very rare in this area. (Penge is an exception.) The origin proposed ('heart-fort') I have deleted. You might imagine a fort being called long-fort or old-fort or fort on a hill or something but why on earth would a fort be called 'heart'? Place names just weren't formed in that way among the Celts. 2. Anglo-Saxon origin - as I have said above, this would be the default assumption, and the etymology ('saffron valley') is a reasonable one. 3. Viking origin - this area wasn't settled by the Danes and while the etymology 'crooked valley' is at least realistic, they weren't around to name it, and the local settlers spoke Anglo-Saxon so they wouldn't have used viking phraseology. 4. Norman/Old French origin - when the Normans came, places already had names so new names didn't often arise in their period. There were already Anglo-Saxons living in the area so Croydon must already have had a name, but it would be rare in the extreme for an existing name to be changed by the Normans. Asnac (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This makes good sense to me, Asnac, as you said, all the names of the areas now constituting Croydon have Anglo-Saxon names, and what was the original place would have been established long before the Normans arrived. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Neighbouring areas template

Anyone else feel that the 'Neighbouring areas' template is obsolete? It doesn't really fit in to the article, and if the info is vital it should just be written in prose instead. Pafcool2 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Croydon Facelift

This term is so well established in British culture that there should be a reference to it.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croydon_facelift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.3.98 (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Famous people

This suburb is lacking a Famous People section.

For a start, one of the most famous living people from Croydon is Kate Moss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Moss). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.3.98 (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

racial/ethnic demographics

Why is there no section on Croydon's ethnic demographics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing exists on Wikipedia unless some unpaid volunteer feels moved to write it. Perhaps most English editors are just not that bothered about ethnicity.--Charles (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Boundaries of Croydon unclear

As it indicates in the lead sentence, Croydon is just a part of the London Borough of Croydon, not the whole thing. Therefore some things like the population in the infobox are wrong (363,400 is the borough population, not the town population). Anyone got any suggestions on how to narrow down exactly what Croydon is, as opposed to the London Borough of Croydon? (I'm removing the population because it's just wrong.)—A bit iffy (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Population

It does not provide information on the population size of the city — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayumadehrafti (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not technically a "city", but that's a side issue. The reason there are no population figures is that the town of Croydon is not a formally defined entity, and has no agreed boundaries: see numerous discussions on this page, including the last one. You can find population statistics for the London Borough of Croydon on that page. GrindtXX (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Edge city

There are a few sources for this. [1] [2] [3] It appears Croydon was a founder member of the European Edge Cities Network. MRSC (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)