Talk:Edmonton, London

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

Local Photographer. Suggestions for images of interest in Edmonton?[edit]

I plan to add some images to this reference. Is there anything in particular people not local to this place think would be usefull to see? Yes,Maybe photos of the semi rural areas of Edmonton such as the River Lee and the William Girling reservoir.Northmetpit 15:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Town of Edmonton?[edit]

"Often refered to as the town of Edmonton"

I'm taking this out - I've been living in Edmonton since 1988 and I've never heard anybody say any such thing! BTLizard

As stated in the article, until 1965 Edmonton had a town hall, and there are various references to the "town of Edmonton" up to that time. As an example, in 1621, The Witch of Edmonton (published in 1658) by Thomas Dekker, John Ford, William Rowley, et al. is set in "The town and neighbourhood of Edmonton". Coyets (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I grew up in the area in the 1970's, and it was still commonly referred to as "Edmonton Town" then, just as there was also "Enfield Town." 84.93.165.235 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boundary[edit]

Hi folks, I would not quarrel with the latest edit by user IMC in removing "historical" from the first sentence where it formerly said "The man-made River Lee Diversion .. forms the .. historical boundary between Middlesex and Essex." because as IMC says, the original boundary was the original river Lea, not the man-made diversion. But.. The lead sentence now says "The man-made River Lee Diversion .. forms the .. boundary between Middlesex and Essex.", which ceased to be true in 1965 with implementation of the London Government Act 1963. Can anyone suggest a better wording for this? Pterre (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually created the Lower Edmonton web site that is used as a reference for the comment and it does look rather garbled. However surely the issue is what on earth the comment is doing in the first paragraph anyway. What is so important about the eastern boundary? Grunson (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No changes to the physical Middlesex/Essex border took place in 1965. The Local Government Act merely redefined ADMINISTRATIVE boundaries, just as the later 1974 local-government reorganization changed only administrative boundaries, not actual county boundaries. 87.115.88.67 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesex/Essex boundary[edit]

I've taken that section out. As you say the diversion of the river was never the boundary, and as such a boundary no longer exists, it should be dealt with (if at all) in the 'history' section, not the introductory paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.182.112 (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such a boundary no longer exists? Yes it does! There is still an Essex/Middlesex boundary. The fact that bureaucrats redefined administrative boundaries hasn't changed that. Even the government itself has acknowledged that the various local govt. changes (1974 etc.) were NOT decreeing changes in actual county boundaries or attempting to abolish counties as such. 87.115.56.207 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And still those who I must assume have some sort of agenda keep trying to insist that Middlesex no longer exists, despite the fact that they cannot cite anything which officially abolished it as a county. The abolition of any particular government administrative body bearing the county name is NOT the same thing! 87.115.163.24 (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only agenda is Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. Please read this. If you have a problem with the policy might I suggest you raise this in the appropriate forum. The fact that Edmonton (along with numerous other places which do not suffer repeated vandalism) was part of Middlesex prior to the creation of Greater London is referred to later in the article. Please also note that if you wish to show that Edmonton is still in Middlesex the onus lies on you to provide reliable references, not on anyone to disprove it. Pterre (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You talk as if these Wikipedia guidelines are somehow more important than facts. That Edmonton had been within Middlesex for centuries does not seem to be disputed by anyone. So where is the legislation which decreed that Middlesex, as a county, was no longer to exist? Can you cite it? Of course not, because no such legislation was ever passed. Middlesex County Council, the local government body, was abolished, certainly. But that's not the same thing as a decree that the county itself is no longer to be considered to be in existence. 87.112.142.201 (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take your arguments to UKGEO. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where your claim, backed up by official documentation and statements will be completely dismissed because "established Wikipedia policy," despite having nothing to back it up, will be deemed to take precedence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.48.115 (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. At UKGEO you can make your argument that the encyclopedia would be improved by changing the naming guideline. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way (User talk:87.112.142.201) or (User talk:46.208.48.115) or whatever IP address you appear as next. I support Mr Steven's repeated suggestions about raising your issue at the UKGeo Talk pages. I would also advise apart from your constant habit of ignoring advice the other reasons why your posts lack credibility is that you keep on appearing using a new IP address every day or so which becomes tedious for other editors wo have to establish if you are a new editor contributing or not. This may not be done on purpose but does not help your cause. Maybe you are just failing to log in but I assume its because you have not registered with an account. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? I encourage you to open an account as by doing this as you will achieve more. As will acting in a polite and respectful way towards other editors. Unfortunately you do not have a good track record to date when you repeatedly accuse them of being bureaucrats with an agenda and trying to further their own interests etc. Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith and see here which deals with civility and avoiding the making of personal attacks on oher editors. I hope you are of the mind to take this advice on board.Tmol42 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

The (WP:EL) guideline says that external links should be kept to a minimum, they should contain encyclopaedic material which can't be included in the article for copyright reasons. The links must be directly relevant the the subject of the article. Links that should be avoided (WP:ELNO): links that are there just to promote a website, personal websites, sites which are too general (in this case the whole borough not just Edmonton) and sites which are too specific (in this case schools, parks not the whole of Edmonton). Also WP:ELBURDEN says "Disputed links should be excluded by default until there is a consensus to include them."Grim23 16:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grim23. Thanks for reply. I have just gone through the external links and do understand that check on unwelcome links has to be done. The links here all contain useful and relevant information and add to the article. (Northmetpit (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Hello Northmetpit, I still feel that the links don't adhere to WP:EL guidelines:
  • Pymmes Park Information: This website is too specific, it only covers Pymmes Park not the whole of Edmonton.(see point number 13 in WP:ELNO)
  • Lee Valley Park website: Likewise this website is too specific.
  • Lower Edmonton N9 Information: This is a personal website (see point number 11 in WP:ELNO) and describes its self as "tongue in cheek"
  • Edmonton County School Old Scholars Association: This website is too specific.
  • Reports and Statistics for Edmonton and Enfield Borough: This website is too general but maybe information specifically about Edmonton can be deep linked?.(see point number 13 in WP:ELNO)
  • Council Tax charges for Edmonton and Enfield Borough: This is an estate agents website, with lots of adverts, containing minimal and out of date information. (see points 4 and 5 in WP:ELNO)
  • Lee Anglers' Consortium: This website is too specific.(see point number 13 in WP:ELNO)
  • Edmonton TV: This is a personal website (see point number 11 in WP:ELNO), contains no encyclopedic information and is not neutral.
Some of these sites do have encyclopedic information, but they should be used as sources if they count as reliable sources. Having said all this I can live with the inclusion of Pymmes Park, Lea Valley and Reports and Statistics for Edmonton and Enfield Borough. But I feel the other links are there purely to promote their websites and should be removed. Grim23 19:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, Pymmes Park, Lee Valley Park and Edmonton County School have their own articles, which are linked to in this article, and it is sufficient that the external links related to these three topics appear in those articles. Coyets (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replies. I have removed several of the links. I have kept the Lower Edmonton site onboard as it is a mine of information.(Northmetpit (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Proposed merge with Houndsfield Primary School[edit]

Non-notable primary school Tacyarg (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The page has a reliable source. In my experience, most schools can now meet the test of WP:N. Also, Edmonton has a large number of schools, see List of schools in Enfield, and the page for Edmonton would be swamped by new sections for each of them. There is no harm in this school having its own article. Moonraker (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]