text:
Talk:Bexleyheath

London or Kent
Bexleyheath has a position within both London and Kent. Both are important for any understanding of the town today. I am not taking sides in the debate about counties, the ABC can do that, but it cannot be disputed that Bexleyheath is in the historic county of Kent, a fact that has a significant bearing on the town and population today. This alone justifies reference to Kent at the start of the article and does not contradict any WP policies. The awkward situation regarding what is and is not a county is an unfortunate result of ambiguity developed over time. It means there is no simple one line description of where Bexleyheath, or numerous other towns, actually are. Better to spell it out in several statements rather than choose one and exclude the others. Doing the latter would be doing a dis-service to the intent of wikipedia.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

 * You could say the exact same thing about Woolwich, Greenwich or Lewisham. Justgravy (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Similar but not the same and certainly not exactly the same. The main difference that those other places closer in have no living inhabitants who remember having a practical every day link to Kent. But, despite that Woolwich and the others are in the Historic County of Kent and links still exist, weaker though they are the links between Bexleyheath and Kent. For that reason alone mention should be made of he Kent links in the articles about Woolwich and many other places closer in to London. Sadly this rarely happens. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself calls historic counties 'former counties'. They no longer exist. To say a place is in a county that doesn't exist is inaccurate and misleading. The fact the historic counties pushers don't tryta claim other areas of London that were previously in Kent shows they have no conviction in their own beliefs. It's simply a backdoor way of saying somewhere they personally view as Kent should be called Kent. It's things like this that give Wikipedia a bad name and cause people to distrust the information within. Riteinit (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Worth mentioning for anyone reading this that Riteinit is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Town or District
@Southlondoneye I can see what you are trying to do both here with Bexleyheath and elsewhere, but you are IMO on a hiding to nothing. You cannot standardise the whole of London in this way because London is not a standardised entity. One of the latest way of catagorising London might be to create different 'districts' but that is simply a administrative exercise. Bexleyheath, the subject of this article, is a town, not a district. It gives its name to the district you refer to but does not change its status as a town.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The term town is a specific categorisation for which Bexleyheath does not qualify. Despite sometimes colloquially being referred to as such, it is not a 'town'. Stylistic consistency dictates that articles for neighbourhoods in Inner and Outer London refer to them as districts, hence the necessity of the change. Southlondoneye (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Southlondoneye I refer to your edit and comment today. The London plan does not dictate what is or is not a town, or a village or a hamlet. It has merely created 35 areas of Greater London to help promote the greater good of London. One of those areas happens to be called Bexleyheath, presumably because the powers that be deemed Bexleyheath to be the most significant town in that area, a custom followed with most of the other 34 areas. Bexleyheath, the subject of this article is not the Bexleyheath you are referring to. If you think the Bexleyheath of the Greater London Plan warrants an article of its own then why not start one up? Alternatively, why not insert reference to the GLP district of Bexleyheath somewhere lower down. There is an obvious link between the two Bexleyheaths, even though they are not the same. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, the term town is a specific categorisation for which Bexleyheath does not qualify. Despite sometimes colloquially being referred to as such, it is not a 'town'. Stylistic consistency dictates that articles for neighbourhoods in Inner and Outer London refer to them as districts, hence the necessity of the change. Southlondoneye —Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Southlondoneye, could you provide a link to the discussion in which the consensus for this terminology was reached? Maybe that would help convince others... Jdcooper (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

 * A discussion was started here on 29 April. That might help with consensus (or lack of it). Carcharoth (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Notable residents
Over the next couple of weeks I'm going to try to rationalise the lists of notable residents of Bexley towns. Each one currently has a long and unsourced lists of people who might have gone to school there, may anecdotally have been seen in the area, may be from a neighbouring town etc. (see Sidcup for example). Also, many people were born in, say, Bexleyheath but grew up in, say, Welling. Meanwhile the article List of people from Bexley is woefully underpopulated. So I'm going to try to migrate most of the lists to there as a central list (with fully explanation of their local connection and history etc), add them to the articles about their secondary schools if the sources back that up, and only leave people on the list in articles about the specific towns if the source clearly states that they lived in that place. (see current list at Bexleyheath for an example). This should make the info more reliable, easier to check, and easier to understand. Any comments, objections, suggestions? Jdcooper (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Just looking at the Notable residents list. Kate Bush while born at Bexley Maternity Hospital in Erith road, she was never resident in Bexleyheath. She grew up at the family home at East Wickham farm just outside Welling.
 * Also the entry for Roger Moore and Dorothy Squires states they lived at the Mount Bexleyheath, they didn't. They lived at St Mary's Mount, Wansunt road in the Coldblow area of Bexley village. The confusion is understandable as there was a house called the mount in Bexleyheath, it stood where the Fairway is at Bexleyheath golf course this was demolished before Moore and Squire met. I'm not going to edit the page due to the edit war it seems to have suffered. But in the interest of accuracy the edits should take place. I can provide sources to verify this if required. Barneyuk (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that update. Why not edit it yourself if you have sources? This isn't a contentious issue. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I did explain why I wasn't editing. I will however carry out the edits later today. Barneyuk (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bexleyheath. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110213407/http://www.edp24.co.uk/lifestyle/poor_suffolk_boy_to_formula_one_billionaire_1_818525 to http://www.edp24.co.uk/lifestyle/poor_suffolk_boy_to_formula_one_billionaire_1_818525
 * Added tag to http://www.bexley.gov.uk/article/3362/Surnames-beginning-with-M
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225170850/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/welling.website/ to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/welling.website

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bexleyheath. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121031125938/http://www.bbhockey.co.uk/index.php to http://www.bbhockey.co.uk/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161114001941/http://www.bexley.gov.uk/article/3378/Surnames-beginning-with-T to http://www.bexley.gov.uk/article/3378/Surnames-beginning-with-T

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

County confusion and edit wars
This comment applies to articles about the other nearby places and the edit wars that have just started -November 2017. This problem runs deeper and affects the whole of WP's treatment of the UK. Some facts would help. In context here 'Kent' refers to the historic county, not the ceremonial county. 'London' refers to the ceremonial county, whose correct name is Greater London. They are different things so there is no need to argue that a place is in one county so it cannot be in the other. WP policy is to refer to the ceremonial county as where a place 'is'. It is also WP policy, if relevant, to refer a place's historic county in the lead. For places in Bexley this is certainly relevant. The word 'historic' relates to the past (eg what has made Kent what it is today) but not necessarily to something that has ended (Canterbury Cathedral is an historic building). The word is unfortunate and some people choose to use 'traditional' instead, such as the government. There is no evidence that the HC of Kent has ever been abolished. It has lost its administrative role but that is all. The way local govt has developed and changed over time has been less than straightforward and one ambiguity has fed of another and we have ended up with the confusion we currently have. WP's approach seems to be reasonably well intended but it is not as clearly laid out as, in my opinion, it should be. This has caused the muddle that has developed in Bexley and in most other articles about UK counties. Perhaps we should all attempt to have WP policy and guidelines clarified rather than constantly edit warring. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

 * A more detailed debate has taken place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, which is possibly, depending on the type of comment, a better place to make further comments. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, in my opinion this dispute has now gone too far. When it implied that an editor attempting to make good-faith improvements, is in instead editing disruptively, there is a problem. There is clearly a POV dispute around the status of historic counties, between those who think the historical counties are current entities, and those who hold some other viewpoint.

This edit was my attempt at presenting the pertinent fact in a neutral fashion. I believe that statement is both true regardless of the "true" present-day status of the historical county and that it makes no assertion about its current status.

Roger 8 Roger reverted that in a way that clearly matches his POV on the truth of the matter. I'd also point out using a source in the manner he is doing is contrary to WP procedures, especially when there is no mention of Bexleyheath - as far as I can tell he's inserted it solely to justify the "is".

I'd like to see this saga closed off soon. Its already in WP:LAME territory for splitting hairs over "is" or "was". It shouldn't be necessary to resort to a straw-poll here, as a NPOV approach is perfectly reasonable here.

Pinging Acaptial, Blue Square Thing, ClemRutter, Ghmyrtle, Mr Stephen Rodw and Warofdreams who have been involved in similar discussions recently.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to come up ever few years. It's important to make clear which administrative county places fall into, and it is of great interest which historic county or counties they have traditionally been part of.  Where the ceremonial county is different, that is also worth noting.  The government has made clear that the traditional counties have some kind of continuing existence (it's unclear whether this also applies to parts of counties, such as the ridings of Yorkshire).  Given that the traditional counties are not used for any official purpose, this comes as a surprise to many people.  So, in my view, it's accurate to say that places are part of one or more historic or traditional counties, but it's generally clearer to use wording along the lines of "historically in...", where the word historically can link to a full explanation of the status - it's definitely overkill to labour the point in every article on a British settlement. Warofdreams talk 02:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 * @Nilfanion I did not call your edits 'good faith' because there was no room left on the edit summary slot. I have no doubt at all that your edits are in good faith and I welcome them because the detail and reasoning you give are usually lacking in some other editors. I regret causing offense, if that is what I did. Now, back on topic, even though this discussion should occur here.
 * The debate should be about how best to incorporate the HCs into articles where the CCs take primacy, which is WP policy for UK county articles. That seems to be what the guidelines tried to do when written years ago, but this has not worked properly, as evidenced by thousands of examples of confusion throughout WP. The debate should absolutely not be about whether the HCs still exist because the evidence that they do is overwhelming, and quite frankly I am fed up with constantly being dragged off course with a yes they do, no they don't, squabble. The source I inserted was an attempt to stop this pointless distraction. It was not ideally located, as I said and as I suggested it be moved/tidied, but it was nevertheless a top reliable source dealing with the is/was issue.
 * It is hard to see how I am breaching wp:npov. I have supplied a wp:rs to confirm the tense of a statement that simply follows WP guidelines-mentioning HCs in the lead. I accept that many people believe the tense should be past, not present, so in order to create balance it might be better to add a contrary statement in the lead- that confirms was, not is. Please, do that if you want but make sure it is properly referenced with absolutely unambiguous citations. Doing that though will make the lead clumsy. I have found it difficult to find such a reliable source. Nearly everywhere, all I find is personal opinion or misunderstanding of the word 'historic', leading to grammatical and factual illogic. I even find some editors who think that a place cannot be in two areas at the same time, meaning that if CC exist, then HCs cannot exist, too, or vice versa. And, yes, I have raised this issue many times before in many parts of the UK, always with what I believe is solid reasoning. I am nearly always met with a refusal to discuss and with other editors' (not my) POVs. So, being accused of be in any way 'disruptive' seems a bit rich. I will give an opinion on the talk page but not intentionally on the main article page. Whatever happens regarding this current debate, unless something significant changes, the problem will crop up again, and again, with different editors in the future. Of that I have no doubt. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @Warofdreams I agree that it would be overkill to labour HC status in all place articles. To say that, say, Lewisham or Maidstone are in the HC of Keent, in the leaad, would be odd (for different reasons). But there will be articles where it is relevant to mention which HC a place is in, in the lead, because that fact is relevant to a particular place, such as Bexleyheath or Orpington, or even perhaps Kennington (Surrey CC). And that is not even to mention Rutland or Yorkshire or...and so the list goes on. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If your message is too long for an edit summary, it should have been left on a talk page. Edit summaries should not be used for complex messages.
 * The best way to handle a POV dispute is to seek a way to avoid it. There is obviously a POV dispute about this matter, and I'm sure you agree that a dispute exists - even if you cannot see the logic in the other sides position.
 * The best way to handle this in a neutral fashion is to find a way of describing the historical county that does not actually assert a POV. "Bexleyheath is in Kent" is a POV statement. "Bexleyheath was in Kent" is also a POV statement. Alternative phrasings, such as the one I used, do NOT deny that the historical county exists. But, importantly, it doesn't imply it must exist. Therefore it presents the facts in a more neutral fashion, avoiding any room for dispute. Readers don't care about this, they just want the facts about. Don't bore them with contradictory sources.--Nilfanion (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to add that for the most part my personal view is neutral-acknowledgement (I wouldn't deny the existence of the historic counties, but I don't really care). What matters to me is making the text as clear as possible to the reader. Saying " is in the historic county of ", when you already have " is in (ceremonial county of) " is not ideal. Its repetitive, and potentially awkward to read - we don't want readers doing a double take on a minor point, which prevents them from getting to the meat of the article. Alternative phrasing are both less repetitive and easier to read. They aren't meant to deny the historic county, which is why I struggle to see understand your preference for a more difficult phrasing. Using that better phrasing also removes potential opposition from "historic-county-deniers" - surely that's a good thing?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with almost all that you say, with one exception. The way to handle a POV dispute is to give both opinions, with due wp:weight given to each. That is done with wp:RSs, and not by "avoiding" the issue. Avoiding the issue only compounds the problem because it usually leads to a fudged result that confuses the average reader. The way to deal with a POV issue is to give reliable sources that explain both opinions. What you did to my edit was to remove the RS to create balance which is contrary to basic principles of WP. You, or I, or someone else, should have inserted a RS to give the opposite opinion, but until that happens, my RS must stay. If there is no RS to say that historic counties no longer exist (is/was) then so be it - the dispute is settled. Please take a look at wp:neutrality of sources. It does seem that you are confusing a POV issue with a RS issue. A RS is not a POV. With regard to the whole debate about historic counties I try to stick to RSs and not give a POV. I believe this use of RSs leads to contradictions, but that is because the consensus guidelines are not ideal and contain inherent flaws. I hope that the WP community will accept that and step forward to discuss how best to update those guidelines. I am not pretending this will be easy, county confusion has developed over many decades, but however it is done, change is needed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is a sentence charged with a POV (the is/was thing you are fretting about), and by simply presenting that same information in a different way you can completely avoid any POV connotations - why on earth wouldn't you?
 * Consider the phrase "Bexleyheath is in the historic boundaries of Kent". What is wrong with that? Do you disagree with that? As far as I can tell, that doesn't say the historic Kent does not exist. However, including two sentences that say "X is in the county of Y" and "X is in the county of Z" is confusing. Alternative phrasing both resolves any POV dispute and is clearer to the reader. Furthermore that sentence doesn't need a source stating "historic counties exist", all it needs is a source showing that Bexleyheath is indeed within the boundaries of Kent.
 * The source you are using is not actually useful for this article - or any other article about a place. It is something that should be used by and discussed in Historic counties of England. A source that doesn't actually give pertinent information isn't relevant even if it might be from a reliable organisation. You are jumping from a source that says "historic counties exist" and using it incorrectly in a sentence says "this specific town is in this specific historic county".--Nilfanion (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If I had to give one opinion about this whole topic it would be that the 'how to write about counties' guidelines that state that HC no longer exist should be changed. It will require further changes to other guidelines about how to refer to 'counties', and in some cases this might involve some seemingly drawn out and pedantic wording, but that will be better in the long run because it will avoid the inherent contradictions that occur by assuming that historic counties no longer exist, based on nothing more than POV consensus and in opposition to overwhelming top rate references that state otherwise. Your 'middle of the road' sentence is good in a way by not giving an opinion either way, so it is hard to object to it. However, by leaving it in place I think all it will do in the long run is postpone the next dispute discussion about HCs. I do have trouble though agreeing to remove the citation I inserted. As I said, it relates to the verb tense (is v was) and not specifically to Bexleyheath or to any place. It would fit equally well in hundreds of other UK town articles. By leaving it there it does not contradict your sentence but allows readers to form their own opinion. If I can offer any compromise solution then this is about as far as I think I can go - your sentence with my reference inserted somewhere with it. I cannot see any contradiction or confusion by having your sentence with my citation. I think it would also comply in all respects with WP editorial policy. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we are agreeing here, try to get a "middle of the road" statement. There may be some precise phrasing issues to resolve, but I think there are several variants that are acceptable in practice.
 * The issue with your source is that has literally nothing to do with the content of that sentence, and providing it would add nothing except confusion to someone who actually follows the link. A source for a sentence like "Bexleyheath is within historic Kent" would actually show Bexleyheath in Kent (like an old map). And with a "middle of the road" statement, you don't need even need a source like that to justify the "is": Even if the historic county was 100% defunct Bexleyheath is still in its historic boundaries. With no relation between the source and the sentence, the source isn't suitable.
 * Furthermore in this particular article, there shouldn't be any citation in the lead on this matter. No article should have a citation in the lead, when the same information is discussed in the body text, in greater detail. In this case, there is more information in the geography section. The cites belong there.
 * And finally - I agree the guideline on historic counties is dated, but there isn't a need for a drastic revision. The guidance already says the historic county should be mentioned if different to the ceremonial one. The only addition I think that would be of benefit would be to give some example sentences on what to say/not to say (ie promote the middle-of-the-road approach).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, historic counties are also known as former counties. Former, not present. From that alone it should be obvious that historic counties shouldn't be used as a present day geographic reference. As their name suggests, historic counties are a historical reference. Riteinit (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Resident Haye - Daily Mail - etc
I thought my deletion might be disputed. I saw that comment you quote from the DM reference about his 'return home to Bexleyheath' but chose to disregard it. This was because 1/ There was no elaboration: he could have been renting a place for a couple of months or staying with a friend, which doesn't really count as being a local resident b/ I had a quick look elsewhere and could not find any other references to his living in Bexleyheath c/ I too am a little concerned about not believing anything the DM publishes, but the WP guide/consensus that I linked to is pretty clear that the DM is unreliable and in nearly all cases should not be used as a reliable source. To me that means that the claim that he is a resident is uncited and can therefore be removed, especially as I looked elsewhere for another citation and could not find one. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

 * I don't think that quote is ambiguous. It's true that he may have since moved, but I'm sure if he was staying with a friend it would be phrased in a different way. It requires imagination to think they are referring anything other than his home! I would be happy to change the wording to reflect that he might not still live there. However, you are right (from cursory glance) that there are no other references to Bexleyheath. I found references to him living in Keston, Vauxhall, and "south west London". Short of anything clearer saying he used to live in Bexleyheath I guess it makes sense to leave him off the list for the time being. Jdcooper (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

London / Greater London
According to Wikiproject London Guidelines nowhere should be described as “Greater” only “London”. People have recently been making a mockery of the Wikiproject and I for one shall not stand for it. I just wanted to make that clear here.Justgravy (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you give a link to the guideline that you're referring to here? All I can find is WP:LONDONNAMES, which only says to avoid the word "Greater" when naming a list article. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Yes exactly. So you're happy to have a contradiction between list articles and other entities?Justgravy (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

 * So it's not in the guidelines. A consensus to phrase list-article titles WP:CONCISEly doesn't seem at odds with how best to describe where Bexleyheath and Crayford are, so you're right, I wouldn't object if they were phrased differently. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

 * A credible editor would not stand for such contradiction in their encyclopedia. This is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about, and you expect me to think that Wikipedia is not institutionally biased...Justgravy (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Historic County in Lead
I am opening a discussion here about having the historic county in the lead of an article. Roger 8 Roger suggests there is a guideline about it, but all I can really find that is concrete (i.e. not in a small nutshell which says to be cautious about doing it) are discussions which generally oppose what they are trying to do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(places)/Archive_1Justgravy (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 * WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements says that the article lead for a UK settlement should "normally cover" the historic county. Putting it in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE seems excessive, though. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's your guideline link above JG. You have seen that before though. I am reasonably neutral about where precisely in the lead Kent should be mentioned, but being mentioned is certainly necessary due to the reasonably significant influence being in Kent has on the town. For other places further into GL, that are also in the HC of Kent, such as Lewissham, that influence is (much) less and so IMO there is a case for not mentioning Kent in the lead, as the guidelines contemplate. Incidentally, a better place to expand on this Kent-London debate is not in History but in a Local Govt section. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Yes I have seen it before, but I fail to see where your argument lies in this, could you please provide quotes from it in your argument. You keep saying that places like Bexleyheath have "significant influence" from Kent whereas places like Lewisham have "much less" influence, however I do not agree with this and would ask you to please prove it.Justgravy (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Historic counties don't exist. They're from history, as in of the past, as in no longer in existence. Winston Churchill is a historic Prime Minister. Is he Prime Minister now? No. All this nonsense is simply an attempt to turn the clock back by people who wanna live in the past. Basically, it's very wrong coz it's inaccurate and misleading. No one in Bexleyheath pays tax to Kent or votes in Kent elections, why, coz they don't live in Kent, they live in London. Riteinit (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Slightly off topic, but still pretty relevant here, within Riteinit's rant lies the nub of where, IMO, the underlying problem lies. The reasoning goes - 1/ Historic counties were formed as admin areas 2/ Therefore when admin areas are altered so are the HCs 3/ Therefore historic counties were once extant areas but they are no longer. This rigid reasoning pervades throughout the wiki approach to UK geography and the minds of many people, such as JG and Riteinit. See WikiProject UK geography/Guide The flaw in the reasoning is at least twofold - where counties all originally created as admin areas? (Kent was a kingdom), and even if they were all originally set up as admin areas, over time the HCs had taken on different roles which made them at least partly seperate from admin areas. Trying to remove this mindset from the UK Geog Project and make all the necessary guideline alterations is where the real problem lies, not whether Bexleyheath is in Kent or London. Until that happens edit wars like this one will keep occurring. (My comments are not trying to steer the topic in another direction). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

 * What Roger 8 Roger is missing here is that Wikipedia has long taken the stance that historic counties do not exist and/or are not relevant, especially in the lead of articles of this nature. Roger is clutching to a very small nutshell which reads: "This page in a nutshell: Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution." They are trying to claim historic counties are both, with no proof whatsoever. Furthermore, they are also trying to split hairs by placing such areas into 2 groups, one which satisfies this criteria (according to him) and one which doesn't. This is purely based on their own judgement. These recent changes to such articles should not be allowed to stand and a great many other editors agree... Justgravy (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 * As noted above WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements explicitly says that historic counties are relevant here: that guidelines says that the article lead for a UK settlement should "normally cover [...] the historic county (if in England or Wales and if different from current county)". If you think London (or parts of London) should be an exception to this, that's better discussed at WikiProject UK geography or WikiProject London so that the same consensus can be established and applied across all relevant articles. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 * I have tried to avoid getting into this debate because, frankly, life is too short, but Justgravy, are you aware that people in LB Bexley have retained Kent as their address, despite being in Greater London administratively? And many retain Kent phone numbers. The whole area is in both Kent and Greater London, which explains the different treatment by different administrative channels. Jdcooper (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 * In what way have they "retained Kent as their address"? What you might not be aware of is that the The Royal Mail removed postal counties from all UK addresses way back in 2000. You might also not be aware that the Royal Mail explicitly states "Each address is therefore not necessarily a geographically accurate description of where a property is located". The same argument can be applied to phone numbers as well. These are private organisations dividing places up to suit themselves and their business needs. They are not trying to tell people where they live and neither do they want to.Justgravy (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My address has always been "Bexleyheath, Kent". But my point was not that those or any other organisation are the arbiters of geography, but that there are clearly vestiges of the historic counties visible in the borough now. I really find it difficult to understand how this is such a controversial issue. Jdcooper (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, Royal Mail has now allowed HCs to be used in addresses. RM might not be using the HCs to arrange its address system (that is now based on postcodes), but importantly it accepts that use of the HC is not incorrect. An implication of this is that it is an example of the use of HCs as extant entities in society. It is also interesting that many people choose, correctly as confirmed by RM, to use Kent in their address rather than just a postcode. JG, I think you refer to the 1996 Royal Mail address changes. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 * @Jdcooper No your address WAS "Bexleyheath, Kent" until 2000, as it clearly says here "According to the Royal Mail, the former postal county data no longer forms part of postal addresses" therefore, your address is XX XXXXXX Road/Street/Avenue etc., Bexleyheath, DA6/7 XXX and has been since 2000. What a great deal of people do not know is that once upon a time, when Postcodes were first created, Bexleyheath was actually part of SE but was removed again a short while later. I have been trying to find information on why places like Bexleyheath were removed from this, but there is very little information regarding it. "vestiges of the historic counties visible in the borough now" I'm afraid you have lost me there? It is a controversial issue because a great many people have no clue where they live!Justgravy (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 * @Roger 8 Roger Please read my response to Jdcooper above. In addition to this, there are many cases where the historic county of an area contradicts the RM's former Postal County. For example Tatsfield whose historic county is Surrey, but it's former postal county is Kent.Justgravy (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * JG, you have not addressed my point. AFAIK, RM sorting addresses are postcode based, as I said and as you have repeated. RM has allowed HCs to be added to the adress even though RM does not use them, making historic counties officially acknowledged by RM. If someone wrote an adress as 1020 Avenue Rd, Bexleyheath, Greater London, DA33 6HT, that would be wrong, because GL is not recognised by RM as forming part of the adresss, unlike HCs. This point about official recognition is extremely important for reasons I am not sure you understand, which is why you are following the wrong line. Yes, Kent in an address relates to where the postal centre is, which is Dartford, but that is another topic. 'Many people have no clue where they live'? We agree! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 * I have addressed all your points. You didn't even acknowledge my point that in 1856 when the London Postal District was first created Bexleyheath, and other outlying areas of London, were within it. Back to your point, If by “allow” you mean “ignore” and/or “do not care” then yes they do. But in my book allowing something and ignoring / not caring about something are different. Why don’t you ask the Royal Mail yourself if you’re so adamant that Historic Countiess are officially recognised by them? You will find that the Royal Mail does not care what you put in an address after the Post Town. You could put Bexleyheath, The Moon for all they care! “This point about official recognition is extremely important for reasons I am not sure you understand, which is why you are following the wrong line” what exactly are you trying to say here? Most of your arguments are just statements with no proof. You keep saying the Royal Mail “allows” and “officially acknowledges” Historic Counties, prove it!Justgravy (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Justgravy, he cant because they dont. RM will let you write whatever you want on the letter, so long as it gives the key details - that doesnt mean they officially endorse it, its just they dont care and they cant stop you. You could write "Rainham, Kent" to an RM postcode and itd still deliver correctly to the right Rainham - itll just annoy the local postman at worst. Unfortunately Roger 8 Roger has a habit of doing this to a LOT of pages relating to locations and incorrectly describing them to readers. Someone posted an order for information above, and really the sub should universally be converted to this to be consistent - as it stands, this page doesnt follow that. Other areas are having similar issues where trolls as part of a fringe group pushing for recognition of historic counties are trying to edit wikipedia pages to reflect their political beliefs - hell ive just noticed Romford was attacked a few days ago when i was looking up the style used on other pages. Its probably worth this page is looked at again, and the first line edited to show a clear priority of information Garfie489 (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Unlock
Why is this page still locked down?
 * Why not register and all will be revealed? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Historical county
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements. MRSC (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Bexleyheath is not in Kent
As per the link above, we do not say, in wikivoice, that a place remains within a historic county in present tense. Bexleyheath is not in Kent. Historical counties are historical, and this is the guideline per WP:UKCOUNTIES and WP:UKTOWNS. I have removed the reinsertion of: Bexleyheath is in the historic county of Kent. This text is not complaint with the guidelines. It is also, incidentally, unsourced. It is certainly true that Bexleyheath was in Kent, although the sentence on its own is then a little random. I would support text that describes its history, explaining that it was in Kent until the creation of Greater London. This would preferably be a fuller history than just that sentence. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The phrase "historic county" implies the past tense. If I said "Bexleyheath was in the historic county of Kent", it would create ambiguity whether I meant it was moved to a different historic county. I understand that you and other editors have some allergy to mentioning this in the lead section, which is fine, but surely this information belongs in the History section at least? Jdcooper (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have no issues with the new wording. Thanks for the edit. The issue with saying it is in the historic county, present tense, is that the phrasing is ambiguous. It can be understood as "it is in the area that formed the historic (i.e. not current) county of Kent" or as "it exists in an extant thing known as a historic county that persists alongside administrative and ceremonial counties, although not coextensive with either of these". That latter understanding is specifically excluded in wikivoice, per WP:UKCOUNTIES which says: 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. Your edit, The area was part of the historic county of Kent until the creation of Greater London in 1965 is entirely in line with the guidelines and good information, albeit unsourced (like much of the page at present). It is not contentious though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sirfurboy, Jdcooper is correct. The historic counties refer to a specific set of boundaries. Regardless of the London Government Act 1963, the county boundaries referred to by the phrase "historic counties" remain the same, whether they still exist with the former boundaries or not. I ask that you refrain from bulk-editing your preferred wording into Greater London articles whilst discussion continues. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was going through this again for the sake of who is probably not aware that this is a minority view you have been asserting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London, Talk:Romford, and many many other pages, and lately at ANI. PC96, you are aware of the consensus view and the guidelines. You are also aware that if you disagree with the guidelines you should open an RFC on them. Unless and until that happens, the matter is a settled one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sirfurboy - I've replied to you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_London#Historic_Counties_(Again). PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

 * There appears to be guarded consensus of improving an article body before mentioning HCs in the lead. We now get to another problem that quite frankly has always bewildered me because it is promoted by clearly educated editors. There are three points to this. One, do we refer to a place as is or was in HC X? I thought there was wakening consensus that it depends on the context and does not depend on the current existence or not of HCs. Two, the current existence of HCs. To me there is absolutely no ambiguity at all that they have never been formally abolished (in fact they have been formally kept after their local govt role was removed - see 1889 LG act). Any treatment of them as being no longer in existence can therefore only be because they have become obsolete. That will depend on which place we are talking about because there are levels of obsolete-ness. Three, and perhaps the most baffling, is simply the English language, grammar and meaning. Is/was are both perfectly acceptable: any confusion arises from the reader's ignorance which here we ignore because we must assume a reasonable level of educated understanding. Similarly, saying Bexleyheath is in GL and the HC of Kent, is not in any way confusing. It is no different from saying London is in England and Europe. The solution come up with has been to say 'Bexleyheath was historically in Kent' which IS ambiguous, making it poor English. The word 'historically' does not mean 'historic', they are subtly different. The adjective historic when referring to counties, in the term 'historic counties' can be confusing, even to slightly more educated people. It does not mean 'in the past and not the present: it means established a long time ago and seeped in historical detail. I note the govt refers to HCs as 'traditional counties'. My guess is that is because it removes any ambiguity that the govt is taking the position that HCs do not currently exist. The guidelines say 'we do not take the view that the HC still exist with their previous borders '. What on earth is that supposed to mean? I am speechless! Does it mean they do in fact exist, but with different borders, which is the closest interpretation of that sentence, or that they no longer exist and their previous borders are also no longer in existence? That clumsy sentence would not pass GCSE let alone A level English. Still with English usage, with Bexleyheath, we must not say 'Bexleyheath is not in Kent' without qualification. Even if the consensus default area of a place is its current ceremonial or local govt area, use of that sentence is very ambiguous, if not simply wrong. It is not our fault the word 'county' has many meanings. It is not our job to decide what the word county should mean, which is what that sentence is doing - original research. It is however, our job to remove or explain ambiguity if it exists. How that can be done is rarely discussed here. Whatever we do it must not be to take a definite stand or create further ambiguity about the meaning of the word 'county' Please note with the Derry/Londonderry debate, consensus reached is that one is used for the city and the other for the county, with no decision taken on which is the correct name. That is how consensus should be used, not to override WP policy that statements must be backed by RSSs. (With 'counties', RSSs are hugely variable and ambiguous, so we work with that ambiguity and do not interpret it which is OR and which is what is happening.) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Places of Worship
I have left the places of worship section asis for now, although added a source. I am not sure what to do with this though. Bexleyheath has some notable churches that are no longer extant (a grand congregational church for instance, and one of the first Elim Pentecostal assemblies) but this is just a current list, which is fine as that is similar to the schools list. But then, it is only churches, so what about other places of worship for other faiths? Should there be inclusion criteria for the list? Such as the existence of a wikipedia page? Or should the list stress architecture. Would be interested in the thoughts of other editors on this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

 * There aren't wikipedia pages for any of them, nor should there be I guess, so I think that would be too restrictive. If there are notable churches that no longer exist, they could be added to a separate list or the same list with a "(No longer exists)" explanatory note, or included in the "History" section. Both seem reasonable. But the list should definitely include other faiths, why not? as for architecture, I guess we could include any information in a table, if any WP:RS can be easily found (ie. a book about local churches). But one could also argue that that would be unnecessary trivia. I don't have strong feelings either way on that question. Jdcooper (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. I will extend then, rather than redact. I will see what sources I can find. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have ascertained that the congregational church was demolished in 1988 and replaced by a new build URC after a merger of the church with the Presbyterians. The old church can be seen here, but at this stage I don't think this is notable information, although I am pretty sure I have read mention of it in a history of Bexleyheath. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2024
Please add that Kate Bush was born in Bexleyheath. Dayaaa (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Already listed Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Possibly a moot point. I think she was born in the nearby Bexleyheath Hospital a short drive from the family home in Welling where she grew up. Technically correct but barely a connection with Bexleyheath.
 * I'll remove her. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, and sorry I forgot to sign my previous comment. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bexleyheath


text:
Talk:Biggin Hill

Controversy / Background / POV
Biggin Hill is trying to be part of the big league and it wants to grow to be a bigger airport.

It is a competitive with London City Airport... some rivalry there. See ASA advertising issue.

Although Biggin Hill is within M25 and closer to London than Gatwick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.25.35 (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Biggin Hill is in London, its the most southern part so its not surprising the devlopers want to expand the airport — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.38.254 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I think most residents would disagree with you! Biggin Hill has to win the award for least "London" out of any part of any London borough except for North Ockendon maybe! Justgravy (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Pictures
I will add a few photographs of Biggin Hill when i am authorized to do so and when i am back from holiday, any suggestions as to what to capture? --Muz (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Pretty though the current Polesteeple Hill picture is, surely a better image would one of Main Road, as that is the main thoroughfare of the town? Jaruzel (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biggin Hill. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708000343/http://www.bigginhillairport.com/UserFiles/100520.ccminutes.pdf to http://www.bigginhillairport.com/UserFiles/100520.ccminutes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Biggin Hill


text:
Talk:Blackheath, London

Lewisham/Greenwich
>> part of the Village around Blackheath Halls lie on the north and eastern side respectively, in Greenwich.

I'm pretty sure that Blackheath Halls is in Lewisham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.148.103 (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

About cwm
I moved this cited but inaccurate assertion here:

"Some vestiges of the Danish camps may be traced in the names of Eastcombe and Westcombe, on the borders of Blackheath, where 'coomb' refers to the Saxon for 'camp'."

Combe actually has no link to Saxon nor Danish.--Wetman (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

 * The historian of 1796 as is typical for The Environs of London posits instead a corruption of "camp"; very unlikely, I agree. Swanscombe in the area, if anything confirms your theory of no corruption, as does the near-standalone raised land of both.- Adam37 Talk  17:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the area of Black heath? both the entire site and the green field. I feel this information should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.148.140 (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

world war 2
I was told when I lived in the area that a number of pits on Blackheath had been filled in with rubble from world war 2 bomb sites and that's part of the reason why so much of the site is flat. Can anyone confirm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidvaughanwells (talk • contribs) 18:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I read similar on one of the related web pages about Blackheath or Greenwich. Will try and find it again! DavidAnstiss (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/lewisham/assets/histories/blackheath - found it! DavidAnstiss (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A valuable fill-in of what happened to the many voids so long exploited for gravel.- Adam37 Talk  17:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus to Move - note to nominator - although PRIMARY topic was the implied rationale for the move, the argument provided The other place names with that name are minor and not very notable by comparison is invalid from a policy/guideline standpoint--WP does not weigh relative topic WP:Notability in any policy/guideline based decision. Once deemed notable, a topic remains notable, no more, no less than any other comparable notable topic. Mike Cline (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

– The London district is the major thing associated with 'Blackheath'. The other place names with that name are minor and not very notable by comparison. The current Blackheath page would be moved to a new disambiguation page. --TransportJone (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blackheath, London → Blackheath
 * Blackheath → Blackheath (disambiguation)
 * Support per nom Nohomersryan (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose commonish name and removing [Blackheath, London ] doesn't make Blackheath, London easier to find. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – it's ambiguous. Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current setup shows there are lots of other places called Blackheath, and it's not obvious that the London place is the primary topic. Keeping the status quo also allows easy identification of incorrect incoming links.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per |Blackheath,_Surrey|Blackheath,_West_Midlands|Blackheath,_New_South_Wales|Black_Heath_(Chesterfield_County)|Blackheath,_Gauteng|Hundred_of_Blackheath,_Kent|Hundred_of_Blackheath,_Surrey page views and search results. SST flyer 08:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Paul W (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per SSTflyer.  Calidum   ¤   18:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ambiguous name unlikely to be known outside S.E. England, fails to identify the topic adequately. Pincrete (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 5 in support (myself included), 4 against. Since it is very tight, I will keep this on hold for further replies before deciding. Also, please see a similar move proposal on Talk:Kilburn, London. --TransportJone (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unknown to average English Wikipedia reader outside of Europe/UK. Filpro (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - SSTFlyer's page view statistics make compelling case that this is the page viewers want when they look for Blackheath, much more than the others combined, and therefore it satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Promotional links
Should links to particular vendors be included when others are excluded?

> Multiple fitness boot camps, including Be Military Fit, run classes on the heath. This usage increased during the COVID-19 lockdowns with Gyms in London closed. Yuri Schimke (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Blackheath, London


text:
Talk:Bloomsbury

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bloomsbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100306135251/http://www.camden.gov.uk:80/ccm/content/council-and-democracy/news/2010/march/business-improvement-district-ballot-result.en to http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/council-and-democracy/news/2010/march/business-improvement-district-ballot-result.en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bloomsbury. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008065533/http://www.alliedlondon.com/news/news_2004spring.html to http://www.alliedlondon.com/news/news_2004spring.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120225502/http://www.uclunion.org/volunteers/organisations/corams-fields-childrens-play.php to http://www.uclunion.org/volunteers/organisations/corams-fields-childrens-play.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100125144225/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23798144-bloomsbury-regroups-for-a-bright-new-future.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23798144-bloomsbury-regroups-for-a-bright-new-future.do
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071106111230/http://www.andrewcusack.com/blog/2005/07/church_of_chris.php to http://www.andrewcusack.com/blog/2005/07/church_of_chris.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071123192722/http://www.sgtm.org/about/index.asp to http://www.sgtm.org/about/index.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930085007/http://cache.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pdfdocs/centlond.pdf to http://cache.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pdfdocs/centlond.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bloomsbury. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140514174430/http://www.citymarque.com/london/locations/bloomsbury/ to http://www.citymarque.com/london/locations/bloomsbury/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Lord Keynes.jpg

Domesday
I’ve removed the reference to Domesday. The text said the area was part of an area mentioned in Domesday, though noting that the first mention of the name Bloomsbury came later. The reference was to the London Encyclopaedia, I checked the LE and the reference is accurate, the generally useful Lon. Encyclopaedia does make that statement – but, I believe, in error, for reasons I set out below. There is no manor of Bloomsbury in the Domesday book https://opendomesday.org/map/ So if the LE is accurate, what neighbouring manor is it part of. The LE doesn’t say, so I examined the details of neighbouring manors (Holborn – of which there is an argument that the area was a part, Lisson, Tottenham Court etc) and none of these had vineyards or wood for 100 pigs). The text already states the name is first used in the 1200’s, I can’t access the online reference, but the statement is also supported by the Oxford Dictionary of English place Names It seems to me that the best course of action is to remove the reference, unless and until someone can identify which Domesday manor the area was a part of. AlasdairDaw (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Conservation & Heritage Addition to Lede
In response to your complete deletion of the lede section I have added, with reason: '[this is] a common trope in London neighbourhoods':

I have added a fairly substantial section on the conservation and heritage of Bloomsbury in the present day. I debated whether or not to include a summary of this in the lede. However I decided in favour, quoting from Wikipedia's guidance on good ledes:

"The primary purpose of a Wikipedia lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article. It should prepare the reader for whatever is in the body of the article, get them interested in the content, and inspire them to read the whole article.# The lead should be one to four paragraphs in length, and should answer most or all of the 5 Ws.# If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead."

Evidently the section on conservation and heritage deserves a mention in the lede, especially as the Bloomsbury lede is actually rather short, and as unfortunately the Bloomsbury article is not entirely developed at the moment. Your comment that this is 'a common trope' I don't really understand. It's just a summary of what appears in the article.

Oward98 (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

On reflection the lead summary focuses too much on the latter part of the conservation article, and takes up too much space as compared to the rest of the lede. I have accordingly condensed the section into two sentences. I think this is more reflective of the article's content.

"Bloomsbury's built heritage is currently protected by the designation of a conservation area and a locally based conservation committee. Despite this, there is increasing concern about a trend towards larger and less sensitive development, and the associated demolition of Victorian and Georgian buildings."

title: Talk:Bloomsbury


text:
Talk:Brentford

St. Laurence's Church, Lot's Ait and Astronomy
Anyone know why this church suddenly shut or its history? Anyone visited it or have photos of the inside? This church seems to be quite an important building yet not much information is out there about its recent history. Anyone else have any information on Lot's Ait opposite Goat Wharf which now homes several very shady characters? I wondered if it had any significant past or potential future. Oh and I believe Brentford has an ancient astrological importance similar to that of Glastonbury's - I've been told that the location of Kew Bridge was significant to druids, can anyone expand?

^^^^

When was this written? There is a webiste for more information on the history of Brentford [www.bhsproject.co.uk/]. St. Lawrence's was sold to developers, who proposed coverting the church into 'luxury' flats in 2004. There is surprisingly little information to be found about this church on the internet but [www.derelictlondon.com] features photographs of the exterior. Lot's Ait was due to be connected to the high street with a bridge in the same year but this never happened. ArseneWanger (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

City of London Flag?
I am not sure what the City of London flag is doing on this page. It looks very nice, but Brentford is in Greater London, not the City. (I wouldn't be so controversial as to suggest the Middlesex coat of arms, butt Brentford definitely isn't in the City!) Any comments? DavidFarmbrough 16:30 BST 10th Aug 2005
 * I agree with you that it is not correct. However, it seems to be part of a general template for London geographic articles, so it's probably the set up and use of the template that needs amending - not the individual article.  I'm not knowledgeable enough about the use of Wiki templates to remedy this, I'm afraid.

 * If a flag is wanted, then there are several possibilities: the flag of the borough (Hounslow); the flag of the Ceremonial County (Greater London) (if it has one); or possibly the flag of the Traditional County (Middlesex). I would tend to favour the flag of the Ceremonial County, even though I mourn the loss of 'Middlesex'. WLD 09:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation link?
I'd like to suggest putting a disambiguation link at the top of the page, one leading to Brentford Football Club.

Disagree - this page correctly refers to Brentford the town in West London, Brentford Football Club has its own page which can be easily found by following the interwiki. There is no ambiguity, hence no need for a disambiguation page. --Vivenot 23:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Vivenot - but don't you think many people search for 'Brentford' looking for Brentford F.C., especially foreigners? I think the orig. poster has a point in maybe putting a link at the top of the page. 206.221.224.35 06:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I would agree if it was a "big" club like Liverpool or Chelsea which have a global fanbase, but if you compare The Bees to other towns with similar Football League One clubs such as Chesterfield, Swansea, Southend, Colchester or Walsall, none of these have a similar disambiguation. --Vivenot 08:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I have had a think about it and I have changed my mind! I now agree that Brentford should have a disambiguation link, at first reflecting Brentford Football Club but which could be open for any other instances of Brentford worldwide (if there are any?). Besides, contrary to my previous remark, Brentford are a "big" football club!--Vivenot 12:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ruination of Old Brentford
There is not much left of The old Market Town of Brentford. As a child, there we so many alleys and yards to investigate, now we have great slab sided building - many lying empty. Many times the message has been "We are going to reinvent Brentford", but this never happens. We have been taken over by yuppie flats all along the water front from Kew to the docklands at Brentford Bridge.

The only things that were good e.g. The Musical Museum in the little old church, they replace with yet more block buildings. The Watermans Centre meant to attract artists from all over. Well one cannot find the entrance and the underground way in is always filthy. The White horse pub as you say, changed to The Weir. Why take away its historical name? We had a gem. We now have just another messy town of no interest. Sadly, Kay. (added 11/1/2006 by 84.66.61.149) Tidided by DavidFarmbrough (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

 * What point are you trying to make regarding this article in Wikipedia? Your comments reflect valid concerns of some residents of Brentford, though they are a bit POV for Wikipedia.  If what you are saying is that the article should include a section on the redevelopment of Brentford (both completed and planned) then I agree with you.--Vivenot 12:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Location, Location, Location
Can someone please shift the red pog on the map? Currently it is in the middle of Kew Gardens, across the river from Brentford itself. It needs to go due north a bit - enough to cross the river. Go the Bees! A short-term past resident, Pedrocelli -- 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Pedrocelli 02:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Pedrocelli 07:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Odd as it may seem, the dot is in the correct position. It is centred on Latitude= 51.4861, Longitude= -0.3101, which is here (click on any of the links to show map). According to Streetmap, that's Ciflden Road. If you look carefully, it is north of the river, as the river bends sharply. Hope that helps. WLD 10:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Brentford_map_closeup.jpg|right]]Those co-ordinates are certainly correct, being Clifden Road right in the middle of Brentford. Unfortunately, when viewing the location map on the Brentford page, the pog does not show up at those co-ordinates.  Rather it shows up south of the river as stated, right in the middle of Kew Gardens.  Note the closeup of the map, captured directly from the screen.  The Thames runs NE between Syon Park and Kew Gardens, then between Brentford and Kew Gardens, then at the eastern end of Brentford turns to the SE.  The pog can be clearly seen surrounded by the white area of Kew Gardens with the Thames passing it on the NW side, and Syon Park across the river.  I don't know how the placement of the pog on the location map works, but as it appears on the webpage it is wrong.  Not by much, mind you.
 * Actually the OS grid reference converts to Latitude=51.48684, Longitude=-0.30390 when clicking on that link. However, when trying that in the map, it shifts the pog towards the bridge, but still doesn't get across the river into Brentford!  I wonder if the London map is keyed to slightly inaccurate coordinates.
 * Looks more like a drawing pin than a pog! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Brentford. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312112913/http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk:80/archive/lbl/pages/moreObjResult.asp?id=4542&code=O1760&terms=horn+cap&search=&whichobj=&go=Go to http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/archive/lbl/pages/moreObjResult.asp?id=4542&code=O1760&terms=horn+cap&search=&whichobj=&go=Go
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527080241/http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/archive/lbl/pages/toursCollectors1.asp to http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/archive/lbl/pages/toursCollectors1.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316022925/http://www.brentfordfestival.org.uk/BF2010PressRelease2.pdf to http://www.brentfordfestival.org.uk/BF2010PressRelease2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911045726/http://www.brentforddock150.co.uk/history.shtml to http://www.brentforddock150.co.uk/history.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106075510/http://www.brentforddock150.co.uk/ to http://www.brentforddock150.co.uk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909054447/http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk:80/news/newsbct/ to http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/newsbct/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060508205707/http://www.brentford.inuk.com:80/ to http://www.brentford.inuk.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Brentford. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.thomaslayton.org.uk/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36&Itemid=42
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140601214715/http://www.brentfordfestival.org.uk/BF2010.htm to http://www.brentfordfestival.org.uk/BF2010.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080406002331/http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/rs/pdf/defra_rs_flood-etc-16.pdf to http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/rs/pdf/defra_rs_flood-etc-16.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130326103248/http://www.brentfordlockwest.co.uk/our-story.aspx to http://www.brentfordlockwest.co.uk/our-story.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705054140/http://www.brentford.inuk.com/bd.htm to http://brentford.inuk.com/bd.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/newsbct/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brentford.inuk.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brentford. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301040459/http://www.jcdecaux.co.uk/contact/?departmentid=58 to http://www.jcdecaux.co.uk/contact/?departmentid=58

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Brentford
Brentford 2601:802:100:14B0:29E7:AAD4:AC5B:B7E2 (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Bettany Hughes opinion
Removed misleading caption; Hughes makes no such claims; she only opines, as an afterthought, that "maybe, just maybe" the confluence of the Brent and Thames offers a possible candidate for Caesar's crossing. That's as much as anyone can legitimately claim, historian or not, and it's certainly not mainstream, and it's not supported by archaeological research. It's a whimsical addition and should probably be removed altogether. Haploidavey (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Brentford


text:
COWSEL

COWSEL (COntrolled Working SpacE Language) is a programming language designed between 1964 and 1966 by Robin Popplestone. It was based on an reverse Polish notation (RPN) form of the language Lisp, combined with some ideas from Combined Programming Language (CPL).

COWSEL was initially implemented on a Ferranti Pegasus computer at the University of Leeds and on a Stantec Zebra at the Bradford Institute of Technology. Later, Rod Burstall implemented it on an Elliot 4120 at the University of Edinburgh.

COWSEL was renamed POP-1 in 1966, during summer, and development continued under that name from then on.

Example code
function member lambda x y comment Is x a member of list y; define     y atom  then *0 end y hd x equal then *1 end y tl -> y repeat up

Reserved words (keywords) were also underlined in the original printouts. Popplestone performed syntax highlighting by using underscoring on a Friden Flexowriter.

title: COWSEL


text:
Talk:Brixton

Local thoughts
I've lived in Brixton 23 years so have added a few comments about the place. Fairly uncontroversial I would have thought. SmokeyTheCat 11:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Brixton in song
While the topic seems a bit silly, I can at least add that in the song "Me and Mr. Jones (Fuckery) by Amy Winehouse, on the new album "Back to Black" contains the lyric, "Rulers one thing come Brixton/Nobody stands in between me and my man". lepetiterobot 19:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Gang
Someone keeps putting in gang nonsence, common now he cant prove it he might as well say theres a gang called the "wikipedians running Croydon" and it will stay on the page, please lock the page

Terrorist mosque in Brixton
Page 39 of Walter Laqueur's "The Last Days of Europe" reports that there is a mosque in Brixton that has a reputation for a large amount of terrorist recruitment. Can someone more familiar with this integrate it into the article? - MSTCrow 01:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a section on the Brixton Mosque... The media coverage you refer to is certainly exaggerated!!!! --SasiSasi (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gangs
That long list of gangs under the gun crime section SHOULD be removed, until they can be verified. Two and a half reasons why: They are a borderline WP:BLP violation, they are unlikely unverifiable, and an egregious vanity magnet to boot. I removed them as such, then noticed an edit war involving an IP address (87.194.87.242) trying to remove them for apparently the same reasons, and having his edits reverted as "vandalism" and being requested not to delete "sourced material" (even though the material was clearly not sourced). I'd welcome some comments on this matter as I totally agree with 87.194.87.242 here. - Zeibura (Talk) 05:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I quite agree. Anything in this article which remains unsourced can be removed by any user. --John 05:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I've just taken an awful lot of unreferenced cruft out. Anything that is returned should be properly referenced. --John 06:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Nice work. I've just realised there was a reliable source in that paragraph at one point but it got lost somewhere in the edit war; here. However this contradicts what was written, which was basically "PDC is London's largest street gang" under a section about gun crime, which is very BLP questionable as the reference clearly states they've been rehabilitating themselves for three years. If anyone wants to add information on PDC back into the article from this reference or others, please do so carefully making sure it's neutral, fully referenced and complies with the living persons policy. - Zeibura (Talk) 06:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree fully that all that stuff about the gangs should be deleted. Not only is it unsourced but probably crap too. I've lived in Brixton 20 years + and never seen any youth wearing bandanas of any colour.  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC) In fact I've removed most of it.   SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  15:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

the gangs that are now listed in the article have a source.

Someone replaced them with "MZ (Murder Zone), PDC (Poverty Driven Children, of which there are many sub cliques) OC, 031, Paid In Full, Roadside G's, CFR among others.", but I reverted this because there is no source.

PDC stands for Peel Dem Crew - this is docuemented in the book 'Street Boys' (isbn-10: 0007271298 isbn-13 978-0007271290) and the following article http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/25/ukguns.news--94.195.201.141 (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The general problem when I wrote the gang and yardie section is lack of reliable sources, but nevertheless we should not stick stuff in there (especially on this subject) without a reliable source. they want to have sex(-: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.145.26 (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I will try and see if I can find a source for the gangs listed above.--SasiSasi (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Found one for PDC (and more): MZ (Murder Zone), OC, 031, Paid In Full, Roadside G's, and CFR still need sources.--SasiSasi (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Layout
Just a nudge that this article would benefit tremedously from adopting the WP:UKCITIES recommended layout. --Jza84 | Talk  20:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 * started restructuring according to the criteria. --SasiSasi (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Looking good! Brixton is an unusual, colourful place, so UKCITIES may be a challenge to apply here, but I'll be happy to help where possible. :) --Jza84 | Talk  21:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 * don’t think we can apply it 100% (there is not cat for crime), but it will help if we bring it more in line with other articles. Some sections need some serious work, cut down and or extension.--SasiSasi (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Riots were successful
I added this section. I don't have a link sorry but AGF please. Anyone who's lived in Brixton as long as I have will confirm this.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  12:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 * This might be your well-informed opinion, but any content that is added to a Wikipedia article needs to be referenced... see Verifiability, Reliable sources and Citing sources for info on Wikipedia's policy on sources etc.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

 * In what way can riots be regarded as successful? Jim Michael (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

John Major
Per this post I made on the John Major talk page some time ago, I'd agree with the recent edits that aspects of his Brixton credentials may be questionable. Contrary to the edit though, the Coldharbour Lane address is still not part of Brixton but where Loughborough Junction merges into Camberwell. I'm not sure if part of the confusion is down to Camberwell being split between Lambeth (which includes the Coldharbour Lane part of Camberwell, as well as all of Brixton) and Southwark. I don't think there's much doubt that Burton Road is in Brixton though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 one external links on Brixton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090720024649/http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/2/hi/uk_news/781755.stm to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/781755.stm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110725090852/http://www.urbangreenfair.org/docs/about.html to http://www.urbangreenfair.org/docs/about.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100409070104/http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk:80/lambeth/main/brixton.htm to http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/lambeth/main/brixton.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100531092318/http://www.southlondon.org/Brixton%20synagogue.jpg to http://www.southlondon.org/Brixton%20synagogue.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120310172341/http://gangsinlondon.blogspot.com/2001_09_01_archive.html to http://gangsinlondon.blogspot.com/2001_09_01_archive.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130622234133/http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/06/20/exclusive-axed-big-brother-bully-alex-has-gang-links-89520-20614450/ to http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/06/20/exclusive-axed-big-brother-bully-alex-has-gang-links-89520-20614450/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402120832/http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr151204_bennett.htm to http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr151204_bennett.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140602200030/http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswire.php/news/reuters/2006/09/29/topnews/boys-shot-in-brixton-mcdonald39s.html to http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswire.php/news/reuters/2006/09/29/topnews/boys-shot-in-brixton-mcdonald39s.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120112084836/http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/john-major-2/ to http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/john-major-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Brixton. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607065751/http://www.southwark.anglican.org/parishes/040j to http://www.southwark.anglican.org/parishes/040j
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105200642/http://web.ukonline.co.uk:80/localonline/d/0040dben.htm to http://web.ukonline.co.uk/localonline/d/0040dben.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 one external links on Brixton. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100602000714/http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/docs/londonplan08.pdf to http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/docs/londonplan08.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090615210023/http://www.lambeth.gov.uk:80/Services/AboutLambeth/LambethCouncilOfficeLocations.htm? to http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/AboutLambeth/LambethCouncilOfficeLocations.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230051452/http://www.lambeth.gov.uk:80/Services/LeisureCulture/LocalHistory/Local/AShortHistoryOfBrixton.htm to http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/LeisureCulture/LocalHistory/Local/AShortHistoryOfBrixton.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804074723/http://www.schmoo.co.uk:80/cannabis to http://www.schmoo.co.uk/cannabis/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109185021/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/standard/article-23496314-details/10+held+in+raids+on+%27Murder+Zone%27+gang/article.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23496314-details/10+held+in+raids+on+%27Murder+Zone%27+gang/article.do
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917111018/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/standard/article-23454573-details/My+escape+from+gangland/article.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23454573-details/My+escape+from+gangland/article.do
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081020074318/http://www.jrf.org.uk:80/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/1998.asp to http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/1998.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012034851/http://brianpaddick4london.net:80/mayor/ to http://www.brianpaddick4london.net/mayor/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Brixton. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608212841/http://streetmap.co.uk/grid/531079_175632_120 to http://streetmap.co.uk/grid/531079_175632_120
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/AboutLambeth/LambethCouncilOfficeLocations.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160530092718/http://londonist.com/2014/04/where-is-the-centre-of-london-an-update to http://londonist.com/2014/04/where-is-the-centre-of-london-an-update
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140901121054/http://www.morleys.co.uk/morleys-stores-ltd to http://www.morleys.co.uk/morleys-stores-ltd
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/LeisureCulture/LocalHistory/Local/AShortHistoryOfBrixton.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100605012120/http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/icons-atlas/london/windrush-square to http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/icons-atlas/london/windrush-square
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217062006/http://www.smallislandread.com/windrush_generation.htm to http://www.smallislandread.com/windrush_generation.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100529062554/http://www.site.transitiontownbrixton.org/ to http://www.site.transitiontownbrixton.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160306004846/http://money.aol.co.uk/brixton-pound-ready-for-launch/article/2009091619230779074080/ to http://money.aol.co.uk/brixton-pound-ready-for-launch/article/2009091619230779074080
 * Added tag to http://www.totaltravel.co.uk/travel/greater-london/london-south-west/brixton-stockwell/attractions/heritage/brixton-mosque
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906203807/http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20020225/lead/lead2.html to http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20020225/lead/lead2.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23496314-details/10%2Bheld%2Bin%2Braids%2Bon%2B%27Murder%2BZone%27%2Bgang/article.do
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23454573-details/My%2Bescape%2Bfrom%2Bgangland/article.do
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106114709/http://www.valshawcross.com/index.php?id=117 to http://www.valshawcross.com/index.php?id=117
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/1998.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brianpaddick4london.net/mayor/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brixton. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607065451/http://www.southwark.anglican.org/parishes/lambeth-north to http://www.southwark.anglican.org/parishes/lambeth-north
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050929132253/http://cms.met.police.uk/news/appeals/drugs/operation_trident_swoop to http://cms.met.police.uk/news/appeals/drugs/operation_trident_swoop
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305095444/http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F12576B4-1ED3-4652-AA4A-99928898EAF2/0/BrixtonCADraftStatement0409.pdf to http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F12576B4-1ED3-4652-AA4A-99928898EAF2/0/BrixtonCADraftStatement0409.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Brixtonacademymural.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * David Bowie Mural.jpg

Lambeth Council elections
Suggest this section is removed or linked to elsewhere as a. too much detail for a general article, b. Coldharbour is only one of four wards that cover Brixton.YellowFratello (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Housing Estates
I thought that the "TULSE HILL" estate and St. Matthews estate were both in Tulse Hill, which is defined as a separate area to Brixton proper. Also Tilson Gardens is in Brixton Hill/Clapham Park depending on who you ask. Will try and find sources either way but pretty sure that is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kip1234 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * B£10 reverse.png

Crime references out of date
Sections on Housing estates' crime, drug crime and gun crime use quite old references 2002-2008. I suggest either updated references and a rewrite if needed, or one or more of these sections taken out or reduced if cannot be substantiated with up to date sources. Rhagfyr (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Governance - Ward boundaries
Ward boundaries and names have changed in the 2022 Lambeth London Borough Council election so changes need to be made and perhaps additional work across pages. Rhagfyr (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Poly Styrene
The preview description when you hover over "Poly Styrene" under famous people from Brixton is horribly vulgar and racist. I don't know how to fix that, but it should be addressed. 213.120.92.154 (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 * I am not seeing any problem. Do you mean when hovering over the wikilink of the name? That links to another wikipedia page and is fine. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Brixton


text:
Talk:Brockley

The stone circle
The article says the stone circle was made by "a group of local artists". Does anyone know who this group is? BobFromBrockley 16:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure without checking - but they did publish a booklet about the whole enterprise - used to be available in the ceramics shop at the bottom of Vicars Hill. NickW 09:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed a very good booklet published by the Brockley Society in 2000. which tells the whole story of the circle, which goes back to 1997 and involved a group of local artists involved in the Brockley Open Studios. The Open Studio event takes place each summer and is a good chance to meet local artists and see their work. See Also the Art House in Lewisham way. Jon G March 25.

an enquiry about an old cinema.
i lived in harcourt rd,brockley from 1939 until 1960.i was 5 years of age.i remember an old cinema in brockley called tha "ritz".does any old resident of brockley also remember this?i would like to know.please e-mail me if you would at ronald_wilton@yahoo.co.uk.many thanks in anticipation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald wilton (talk • contribs) 13:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for (fairly) major restructing in 'History' section
'Restructuring' would be the right word: most of the content is fine as is, but in the first few paras especially, jumps around a bit, and without context or prior knowledge of the interrelation, the shift from Brockley to Crofton Park and back again seem like non-sequiteurs. Therefore, I propose some reordering of how this information is peresented and linked in the 'History' section. You can see the full section here: User:Sjanusz/BrockleyClarify (excuse the title...it was just a working one!)

Here I attempt to explain the interrelation between Brockley as it is currently understood, and the former agricultural hamlet, with as much economy of words as I could. Unless anyone has any major issues with it, I propose to make the edit in a couple of weeks. (Sjanusz|talk)(COI) 20:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Further to this, to make it easier to for other editors to see the changes (and make edits if necessary), I will make them in ~3 obvious phases -- a main clarification to the second para of 'History', some minor edits to other paras, and one reordering change to improve flow. (Sjanusz|talk)(COI) 21:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Brockley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060430015442/http://www.arthouse.dircon.co.uk:80/Arthouse/Arthouse%20NEW%20website/history.html to http://www.arthouse.dircon.co.uk/Arthouse/Arthouse%20NEW%20website/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120314184228/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Aboutus/MinistersandDepartmentLeaders/Ministers/MinistersBiography/DH_4109918 to http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Aboutus/MinistersandDepartmentLeaders/Ministers/MinistersBiography/DH_4109918

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brockley. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070322113929/http://www.croftonpark.com/sainthildas/archive/1900-1919.htm to http://www.croftonpark.com/sainthildas/archive/1900-1919.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628134045/http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9E839563-78A8-496E-8643-E0625BFC6181/0/BrockleyCAA4_112.pdf to http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9E839563-78A8-496E-8643-E0625BFC6181/0/BrockleyCAA4_112.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Brockley


text:
Talk:Brondesbury

Place
What is a "place"? A neighborhood, district, region, sub-township? Is it legally separate, or just colloquially considered separate? "Place" could mean a street corner or a pub. Isn't there a better term for what Brondesbury is? -- ESP 06:28 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Related to why that was put by an earlier editor, the reason is TfL define station names. These in turn towards Inner London (Inner London is strictly speaking east of the station and also of the Edgware Road) are invaribly in modern usage what people consider the area they live in (partially or wholly) to be. Jokingly they put Kilburn tube station north of and so closer to Brondesbury manor than 200 metres away Brondesbury station which is closer to the linear settlement heart of Kilburn.  This is pathetic so yes, if you are pompously addicted to manor terms you will say wherever you live in Kilburn north of its centre that you live in Brondesbury even though Kilburn's station is closer to you; on the other hand if you are fixated by modern trends and the nearest tube station you will say you are in Kilburn like most photographs do of the area (none of the streets say Brondesbury I note in the Wikimedia Commons) and only if you live right within the 100-metre radius catchment of Brondesbury might you say you are in Brondesbury but the road there is mainly Kilburn High Road so again you might as well just say Kilburn.  It is a joke, the stations should simply be reversed in name.  If Brondesbury is a place the tube operators are doing their best to deny its existence.- Adam37  Talk  10:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Brondesbury