text:
Talk:Heathrow (hamlet)

Photographs

 * Are there any old photographs of the hamlet? - Gobeirne (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some images at http://www.retronaut.co/2010/02/heathrow-airport-1935/ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are images in 3 books by Philip Sherwood:
 * Sherwood, Philip. (2006) Around Heathrow Past & Present. Sutton Publishing ISBN 0-7509-4135-9 (contains many pairs of photographs, old (or in one case a painting), and new, each pair made from the same viewpoint.)
 * Sherwood, Philip. (2009) Heathrow: 2000 Years of History. Stroud: The History Press ISBN 978-0-7524-5086-2
 * Sherwood, Philip. (2012) Around Heathrow Through Time. Amberley Publishing, ISBN 978-1-4456-0846-4
 * ...Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Versions

 * Someone put a humorous version of the timeline which is in this article, at http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/heath-row.html . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Excessive detail
As this article currently stands, there is far too much detail for what is a (former) hamlet of little significance. It reads like a community history project in which every single bit of information that can be found has been included, with no bar for notability - WP:NOTEVERYTHING says "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." I cannot think of why Wikipedia should record that a former resident was "Patrick Howell, market gardener. an area on the east side of Heathrow Road, including King's Arbour, where he grew rhubarb under the trees". On top of this, very little of this information is referenced. I tried to remove a lot of this detail, but the editing was undone and so I wanted to start the discussion. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

 * I can't argue that the detail is not excessive as judged by the Wikipedia policy. But I must say I found it a very interesting read, particularly when you consider that more or less everything referred to has been absolutely obliterated by the airport. I would hope that the editor who put in all this material, which is now likely to be taken out, might publish it on another website or even as a local history book. The story of Heathrow is interesting in itself but is also relevant to the current debate about the extension of the airport, with one plan for a new runway threatening to largely wipe out the nearby village of Harmondsworth. Dubmill (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Heathrow School

 * FWIW (no published source), I attended the school in the 1950s, when it was only known as Sipson Primary School. At the end of lessons, I would have to cross to the south side of the A4 road, in order to catch a westbound bus to go home. The only fellow pupil from south of the A4 lived in one of about four houses at Perry Oaks.PeterWD (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Those houses were built in 1935 by Middlesex County Council (1,2,3,4 Perry Oaks) for the sewage works staff. They later became property of the Ministry of Defence and stayed there (between the airport and the sewage works) when Heathrow Airport at its present size was built in 1944 and after.
 * About whether to include this text: "A photograph taken in the mid-1930s (taken at the same place as this Google Earth image) shows a policeman ushering at least 14 Heathrow School schoolchildren south across the Bath Road.": if you have a better source for knowing or estimating the population size of Heathrow before 1944, then please tell me it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, a photgraph is a primary source, and so should not be cited. Secondly, an image of 14 children crossing the road tells us that, on the day in question, a minimum of 14 children were in the area photographed and nothing else. If you had a photo of 14 children crossing the road the same day in Birmingham, what could we say about the populations of the two settlements? The best source for the population of any place in the UK from 1801 onwards is most likely the national census. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Heathrow (hamlet)


text:
Talk:Hendon

History
I have created a new entry for Hendon's history - it seemed to fit better - and I've put in some links. Hugh Petrie

Right Places
Golders Green, Edgware, etc. are places in Hendon. It's like saying that Manhattan is a part of New York. Lets keep them where they belong.

 * Edgware is not in Hendon, it is a separate place which is in the boroughs of Harrow and Barnet. While it has previously been in administrative areas with Middlesex or Hendon in the title, it has never been part of the place which is Hendon. This is in true in the same sence as Edgware is not part of the town named Barnet/High Barnet/Chipping Barnet. 137.222.221.195 (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong places
Golders Green, Edgware, etc. are not places in Hendon. It's like saying that Manhattan is a part of Brooklyn. Lets take them out. CoolGuy 22:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More info on places
Hi Cool,

I can call you by your first name I trust, and I hope you will feel free to recipricate? Childs Hill and Golders Green are to Hendon, what Brooklyn and Manhattan are to New York. You are confusing a railway station with a district, its as if to say that JFK is the centre of New York. But it is understandable given that much of the way people structure place is based on post codes (I believe "zip" code in the USA) and railway stations. I understand what you are trying to say, its just not the case here in Hendon.

Clitterhouse is very much a place (although for a very long time it was called Brent after the station. Since a least the 19th Century it was called sometimes Brent Cross, and recently it has sometimes called Cricklewood (although that is not correct). Its centre is Clitterhouse Farm, home of Hendon FC for a long time. I will of course put back the Burroughs (also called the Burrows) as anyone who has lived in the district for any period of time will be looking for it. These are not simply "hooks" to "hang" articles.

As a Finchley man, and to be absolutley clear on the matter, I have just double checked this with a senior resident of Colindale(Hendon)and Clitterhouse is very definatly Hendon, as is Golders Green and so on.

I'm still struggling with the how wiki is formatted, and understand that there may be elements that don't work very well, and I hope you will understand that this is not easy for me as a dslexic.

Again thank you, always good to have imput.

Hugh

You have been contributing long enough - you should know by now that  is not needed when forming lists!

From the Hendon page I have taken out Boroughs which was a stupid link. But I have left the red links.

Clitterhouse (which sounds anatomical!) does not appear on maps but has been used an hook on which to hang a good article. I suspect it is by User:Hugh Petrie though for some reason he did not sign in. Possibly some of the other unlikely names are actually for articles he is planning to write.

In the same way, I do not recognise Coombe as a place name in Croydon - as the name of some roads but not as a place name. Then I read the excellent article for which it had been used as an hook and found that have been living in Coombe for the last thirty years!

Any reply here, I shall be watching. RHaworth 11:07, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

Lets discuss on the Hendon page. I'm not the one that's been adding these place names--you seem to know more than I do about them. CoolGuy 21:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maps might help
To assist with arguments over right and wrong places, it might be an idea to provide a map of the 8000+ acre parish of Hendon and the former Borough of Hendon (if that was different). To help confuse the issue, here are two maps of the Parliamentary Constituency of Hendon: Note that Clitterhouse and Childs Hill are both outside the constituency - I think they are on Glenda Jackson's patch. -- RHaworth 10:57, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Plans for LB Barnet articles
Hopefully when I have finished, all 56 of these articles covering the Barnet area will be online in this way, and linked from the council web site, rather than having the articles on the website itself. In this way I hope that we will have a more organic presence than that of many other councils' history sites. Organic in as much as people will feel free to add to the page, and copy the same for their own uses without fear of copyright (although the material is copyrighted it is only in order that others cannot "counter" copyright it).

Reasons:
 * 1) Easy to access (wwwBarnet has a tendency to take a nose dive every so often - and who knows what it will become over the next ten years - wwwwiki is hopefully an imortal website which can always be linked to).
 * 2) Every time I want to put a page onto wwwbarnet I have to go through "Press and PR" and IT, and the question about what we are going to put onto the website has been going on for four years now.
 * 3) That allows non council people to feed back and contribute - there are a large number of subjects which we know very little about, for example Hendon Stadium. In this I am glad to say I have been vindicated. People have wikified and contributed bits and its done much more than I had hoped.
 * 4) That isn't in copyright - this is an odd one, but actually if it is our copyright we have to defend it. On wwwwiki its free to everybody, and we don't have to defend a copyright.
 * 5) To promote an accurate collection of information about the borough and objects within the borough, you'd be surprised by the amount of nonsence that's out there.
 * 6) Last but not least to have an organic approach to it all - I make mistakes (see point 5), and this allows for correction,  new links on, and to changes to address of other organisations, etc. (see point 2).

-- Hugh Petrie 2005 Feb 26 09:52

Picture in Hendon article
Do you like the amendments to one time The Midland Arms? - I have been tempted to move it to a link like Hendon Brewery (which by the way was a test peice), but it is important to respect other peoples contributions. -- Hugh Petrie 2005 Feb 28 09:21
 * Absolutely super addition. I hate people who change pub names (see Talk:The Adventure of the Yellow Face when that ceases to be a red link!) so I am glad you pointed out the name change. Suggest we leave the picture where it is. If someone comes up with a better pic for Hendon, then we can move the pub pic to Hendon Brewery. -- RHaworth 04:13, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Category:Barnet
I felt a bit guilty that the only sub-categories of Category:Districts of London were Croydon and Bromley. So I have created Category:Barnet. -- RHaworth 10:53, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about London geography, but as a general principle a page that is in a sub-category does not also need to be listed in the parent. - SimonP 14:45, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

History articles for Barnet
These were a terrible mess with lots overlap, duplicated articles etc. Each "History of..." article should now directly relate to a district page:

 * Arkley
 * History of Arkley
 * Church End, Finchley
 * History of Church End Finchley
 * East Finchley
 * History of East Finchley
 * Edgware
 * History of Edgware
 * Golders Green
 * History of Golders Green
 * Mill Hill
 * History of Mill Hill
 * North Finchley
 * History of North Finchley

The articles about formal parishes/districts should be named as such - otherwise it is consfusing to the reader as the parish/urban district/municipal boroughs usually covered a greater area than the town they were named after. These articles take the form of the name and status when it was abolished in 1965:

 * Municipal Borough of Hendon
 * Municipal Borough of Finchley

Redirects can be created for example from Hendon Urban District and the changing status shown in the article. As all these districts are historical anyway the articles do not need to be called "History of..." Please follow these naming conventions. MRSC 10:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hendon. 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/20110702040907/http://www.gll.org/centre/hendon-leisure-centre.asp to http://www.gll.org/centre/hendon-leisure-centre.asp

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) 17:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hendon. 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/20050308140830/http://www.barnet.gov.uk/cultural_services/local_studies/index.php3 to http://www.barnet.gov.uk/cultural_services/local_studies/index.php3/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311174924/http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?wordText=hendon&service=external%2FSearchResults&sp=Zhendon to http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?wordText=hendon&service=external%2FSearchResults&sp=Zhendon

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) 00:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Hendon


text:
Talk:Heston

Untitled
Why are we advertising a school? I'm going to edit this part as inappropriate. Marinheiro 10:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Covered"?
Second para under "History"

"Before 1229, Heston was part of the parish of Gistleworth (Isleworth) before being taken by Henry III, who subsequently granted it to the Earl of Cornwall. It covered until the late 19th century creation of Hounslow from outlying parts of two adjoining parishes, 3,823 acres (15.47 km2)."

Could the original writer please explain what is meant by "covered" here. --Oldontarian (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Charing Cross
The readers of this international encyclopedia might not understand that Charing Cross is a point considered to be the centre of London from which distances are measured. The link to this fact does not appear in articles about places in Greater London. Surely it should not be repeated in article after article without explanation. No wonder Americans say Wikipedia is too British for their liking. --Oldontarian (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Heston


text:
Talk:Highbury

Population
I've based the population on the total for Highbury East (10,278) and Highbury West (11,681). Potentially I could have included Mildmay, which would boost the population to over 30,000, but Mildmay lies in N1 and is south / east of Highbury N5. Rellis1067 11:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * for info, London postcodes do not overlay london districts at all well (nor, for that matter, do council or ward boundaries!) thus any population estimates unless using Census data and summing the enumeration districts concerned (which are much smaller) will be a very loose approximation. Postcode N1 is also a problem dues to its size and multi-Borough nature. [[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 11:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * On the whole this is true, but Highbury and N5 do overlay each other quite closely, so this could be the exception that proves the rule. Rellis1067 12:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Regarding Mildmay, right not to include it, as I have now given it its own page, though still a stub. The existing (orphaned actually) page for Newington Green described this as being the area, but it was not inclusive enough IMO to describe the whole Mildmay area, so this demoted to an open space entry. Not wholly happy with 'Mildmay' as I am not sure to what extent residents use the term these days, but I think it is the only viable title for the area - it certainly was never a part of Highbury or Canonbury. Adding it as a neighbour district on this page, too. Tarquin Binary 18:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nobody I ever talked to in Highbury/Islington ever mentioned Mildmay, not even the estate agents! Personally I would not regard it as a distinct entity. However, Islington Council use it and there is the Mildmay ward, and therefore there is census info for it. See the link to the census in References in the article. Rellis1067 21:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I'm not entirely happy about it. I can personally verify that back in the 70s and 80s 'Mildmay' was in some use, though not uniformly so (if you're not really sure of your area, you just tend to use the borough name). I certainly think you may be right about it falling into disuse, but I just do not think 'Newington Green' is an equivalent term. It's a tough one, frankly. I don't think that council wards are much guides, as these are pretty arbitrary, but if they offer some justification in this case, that's something. And I think it is possible to do a write up for 'Mildmay' that establishes its identity - in my mind the whole area, including the green does have a distinct 'feel' to it. Tarquin Binary 23:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Later note. OK, I ditched Mildmay, redirected it to and placed a small entry on Newington Green page. The fact is I have an 1868 source that mentions Newington Green as a district, but does not refer to Mildmay at all. Tarquin Binary 08:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you've come to the right decision. What about your entry on the Highbury article saying that Mildmay is Southeast of Highbury? Are you going to remove that?Rellis1067 19:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Thx for reminder. Will double-check tomorrow for other entries. Tarquin Binary 00:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The Highbury Corner V1 fell on 27th June 1944, not 17th - correction made. I've also added an external link to an engaving of the old victorian-gothic railway station which sadly the bomb destroyed.

Whats going on with the name of the image for highbury barn, i have just re-sized it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakeyjamie (talk • contribs) 21:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias
Some of the language in the section marked doesn't seem to be very neutral - 'gentrification' and 'down market' don't seem to be very appropriate. Totallycrazyman 21:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

 * What is not neutral about stating gentrification has occurred? Rellis1067 20:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's essentially a value judgement, such a phrase can be justified if it's a conclusion reached by a suitable source - eg article in a national newspaper. Otherwise, is remains a personal opinion, and not NPOV. The article would be improved by the use of inline sources (showing your working 8^) ); and a greater adherence to the formats used in neighbouring areas. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The above comment is revealed to be frivolous by Totallycrazyman's repeated use of seem as a weasel word.
 * When the investment of capital in a grouped housing stock and/or its circumscribed commercial properties is designed to effect the appearance of greater affluence, there is no more precise term than gentrification. While a common result of such a process is that occupancy becomes restricted to a wealthier demographic--often to the exclusion of former residents--the author's views on such a result are not intrinsic to his choice of the term.
 * While earnest vigilance against the influence of advocacy journalism on all media is a noble pursuit, Kbthompson's contribution is simultaneously rote and misguided. While I personally believe that gentrification can have devastating short-term effects, the observed sequellae of various projects are by no means universal--more to the point, the term itself is in common usage by both sides.
 * Strictly speaking, down-market is indicative only of lesser financial value, and is plausibly self-evident to the lay observer.

Patronanejo (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 * NPOV removed, changed down market to high-density; same result with neutral term. Gentrification is what happens with millions flooding into an area. - RoyBoy 03:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Roman or Norman
"During the construction of a new Highbury House in 1781, tiles were found that could have been Roman or Norman; unfortunately these have been lost."

From the Romans to the Normans is approximately 650 years; it seems surprising that the antiquarians of the 1780s weren't able to distinguish the artifacts of the one from the other. BTLizard (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I've only reported on what John Nelson said in his book in 1811.Rellis1067 (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

While I'm sure there were a handful of gifted English antiquarians in 1781, my sense is that most available practitioners employed ad hoc techniques and endured the many hardships of 18th century travel only in the pursuit of valuable artifacts. King George II had chartered The Society of Antiquaries of London by 1751, but its earliest collections reveal a preoccupation with the manuscripts, letters, and printed materials associated with the establishment of heraldry and geneaology. While the Society's own publications often presented depictions of crumbling Gothic architecture, these prints were independent commissions--not illustrations to complement articles on the subject.

I would be very surprised if television had not made you better-informed about ancient tiles than were the lot performing the 1781 work. As you are probably aware, the task of distinguishing between Roman- and Norman tile would have been complicated by the recycling of Roman-era materials in Norman-era construction. The ubiquity of mixed-material structures would have obscured their origins until such a time as a sufficiently-large sample of unadulterated structures--with features allowing them to be dated unambiguously to either period--could be compiled.

Patronanejo (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see a picture of 38 Hamilton Road, Highbury,N In London for 1927 and a map my grandfather lived there. It does Not exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.105.214 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

famous residents
I see the famous residents section of the page has been removed? It was very useful and spot on information. It should be placed back, the current page isn't very helpful for people in the arts, like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.249.249 (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes the page has been vandalized by the look of it. Matthewn5 (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, a good faith edit that you don't like is not vandalism - please do not misuse this term. If you have a look at the edit history of the article you will see removing the list with this edit, commenting that it was unsourced and likely to date very rapidly. That is not vandalism, and Philafrenzy does have a point. Unfortunately their edit did also give rise to a load of pathetic and whingeing real vandalism from some fool (see again the edit history) so I suppose a benefit of having it back is that we might be done with that timewaster! :) But anyway, my referring to Philafrenzy above should have alerted them to this discussion. For what it's worth, I agree that the list in its current form is ludicrously long and wholly unreferenced. I suppose that something of the kind could be useful if it was manageable and had refs. I'm not sure what other articles about places do - there is probably some agreed practice in a Wikiproject somewhere! Hope this helps, cheers DBaK (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We could have something like List of people from Hampstead. That's how it should be done. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is excellent - and referenced! And the link into it from the parent article is spot on. Thank you for pointing it out. DBaK (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Highbury. 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/20041109095222/http://www.islington.gov.uk/Community/412.asp to http://www.islington.gov.uk/Community/412.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013003224/http://www.arsenal-land.co.uk/history/highbury/ to http://www.arsenal-land.co.uk/history/highbury/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713204006/http://lltv.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=364823 to http://lltv.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=364823

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) 17:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Famous Residents - removed again.
Famous residents have been removed again, I've contacted Wikipedia about getting it put back and then having the page locked so only I can edit it. The folks at Islington Council shouldn't be allowed to edit this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.47.167 (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. Is this meant to be a joke? DBaK (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:8610:7501:5556:BAB9:FC33:AF4E (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, good luck with contacting Wikipedia and getting the page locked. Do please let us know how you get on. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Highbury


text:
Talk:Highgate

Height
Highgate wood is not the highest part of Highgate. North Hill is. Look on an Ordnance Survey map. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another article with absolutely bugger all about what the area's like now.86.0.203.120 (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

According to a lot of other sources this is not the correct maximum height, nor necessarily the correct place.

See for instance:

https://veloviewer.com/segment/1551395/Highgate+Hill - 159m (This looks a bit high tbh.)

https://www.upstairsatthegatehouse.com/history - 446ft (136m)

https://veloviewer.com/segments/6691038?referrer=Embed_www.cyclist.co.uk - 146m (There's no way the top of Swain's Lane/Pond Square is above the Gatehouse!)

https://en-gb.topographic-map.com/maps/lpj5/London/ - Somewhere on Hillcrest Estate (just off the top of North Hill) - 440ft (134m)

In fact, North Road, which runs from the top of North Hill to the Gatehouse, is almost flat - at around 134m - 136m, presumably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighgateExpert (talk • contribs) 12:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Boundaries
Is anyone able to point towards a map of the area considered to be Highgate? I'd like to research 86.0.203.120's height claim, but it's hard to do when I'm not sure how much of the surrounding area is actually Highgate.

I have found the Highgate Neighbourhood Forum's map, declaring the boundaries of what they consider to be Highgate.

Shane (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There are different measures of the extent of Highgate.

One is "anywhere with the postcode N6".

Another is the the Highgate Neighbourhood Forum area mentioned above.

Another is Highgate Conservation Area, which is slightly different from the NHF area, falling only within Camden and Haringey. The Haringey part is shown on this map: https://www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/highgate_conservation_area_map-2.pdf. The Camden part is shown on this map: https://www.flickr.com/photos/camdencouncil/6257979712/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Another is the political ward boundaries. Camden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highgate_(Camden_ward), Haringey:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highgate_(Haringey_ward)  shown on https://my.haringey.gov.uk/Haringey.aspx.

I think you're right. The height doesn't look right. I've lived here for 15 years and have always thought the 446 ft measure was correct.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Highgate. 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/20101202044533/http://walklondon.org.uk/section.asp?section=35 to http://www.walklondon.org.uk/section.asp?section=35

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) 18:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Notoriety?
Is there really a need for a “Modern Notoriety” section? An unsolved death from thirty years ago doesn’t really seem to warrant inclusion as “notorious”, especially when other - perhaps more significant events, such as the October 1993 I.R.A. bombing of a business in the high street (one of five explosions and a failed detonation on a single day) doesn’t even warrant a mention. Jock123 (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Highgate


text:
Talk:Holborn

Boundaries
Fleet Street and the Inner and Middle temple are actually in the City of London. I think including them in Holborn is stretching its boundaries way too far, I'm not even convinced that it should be anywhere outside the old Metropolitan Borough of Holborn. Any thoughts, anyone? Morwen 23:23, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree. Holborn was a river, then a street, and then an area around the street which became a Borough.  In none of its manifestations has it ever been customary to characterise the western City of London as Holborn, and that knocks out Fleet Street and the Inner and Middle Temples.Chelseaboy 16:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * To say "river Fleet, now subterranean but once flowing parallel to where Kingsway now stands" is not helpful. The river Fleet ran along what is now Farringdon Road, Farringdon Street and New Bridge Street, some distance from Kingsway.

I also agree, furthermore there are many other comments which are simply incorrect, for example the image for 'Old Holborn' Tobacco is not the Prudential but Staples Inn, opposite, which isn't even mentioned. 79.75.2.246 (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)

"the first time anyone saw a gorilla"
I'm assuming that this is the first time that anyone in the UK had seen one; inhabitants of countries where the gorilla is a native species would surely beg to differ otherwise!--Alex Whittaker 22:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible WP:COPYVIO
Much of the "History" section seems to be the same as an article in Covent Garden Magazine, here

 * Example from the magazine: The name Holborn is derived from a hamlet called Holebourne to the East which was established long before 1249, this name in turn is taken from the river Fleet, now subterraneous but it once flowed parallel to where Kingsway now stands. In the days when Holborn was a green oasis the Elizabethan herbalist John Gerard cultivated the land with much horticultural zeal. Here he was the first to catalogue over 1000 native species in a splendid prose tome which still exists to this day at the British Museum.
 * Example, Wikipedia: The name Holborn is derived from a hamlet called Holebourne to the East which was established long before 1249, this name in turn taken from the river Fleet, now subterranean but once flowing under Farringdon Road/ Farringdon Street. In the days when Holborn was a sub-urban, the Elizabethan herbalist John Gerard cultivated the land with much horticultural zeal. Here he was the first to catalogue over 1000 native species which is housed at the British Library .

The WP entry was 2007-05-10. The magazine's Wayback Machine snapshot of 2007-04-19 includes the article, although the text is not preserved. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Course of the "Old Bourne"
I have removed the references to the alleged course of the Fleet and the 'bourne' which are wildly erroneous. It is simply impossible for a stream to run uphill from Temple Bar to Holborn Viaduct. 79.75.42.175 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Tony S
 * Good point. Changed to "below" Holborn Viaduct (and not forgetting that the land surface was built up there when the Metropolitan Railway was constructed) thereby allowing the deleted material, with its two references, to be reinstated. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: my pre-metrication Ordnance Map (1:25000 sheet TQ 28/38, published 1971) has Temple Bar on the 50-foot contour, whereas the 25-foot contour crosses Farringdon Road just a few feet south of the Viaduct. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the correct course of the Fleet or Bourne as it is impossible for any river to flow up hill from Temple Bar. Furthermore there is no other evidence of any river running in that direction. Why don't you go and look at the Temple Bar and walk from there to Holborn Viaduct and see that it cannot be done. 79.72.17.57 (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Tony S
 * The article states below Holborn Viaduct, in the valley of the Fleet River: the misread material and its citations restored accordingly. Please see WP:V regarding verifiable sources, which trump "you can see that it cannot be done." As it happens I was there last week (albeit going up the hill, east-to-west) and took the opportunity to check the point for myself. This is, of course, original research and of no value here. What counts is what can be checked by other editors from reliable, published sources. A good example would be the map I have cited above: any editor can check this and find that there is a 25 foot drop along the suggested course: not a torrent, but a perfectly viable flow in 600 or so yards. This makes three reliable sources. Any further deletion of cited material will seem like wilful vandalism. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources you quote are not authoritative and in fact erroneous. The Holborn and the Fleet are the same stream and as I pointed out rise at Hampstead. No rivers are locatable near Temple Bar. You can see this course clearly on early maps, eg Agas 1640s. Holborn / Fleet was culverted by the City to provide the Fleet Market. The Viaduct was built later 1875. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.72.253 (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Because the Old English words for stream 'Bourne' and tidal inlet, estuary 'Fleet' are different has led to the confusion that they refer to different features. With the development of Modern English the connection between the two was lost and when the early twentieth sources you quote (and whom the later source you mention relies on), looked at the issue they compounded the error and assumed that the hamlet of 'Holborn' was on the route of the stream rather than the route to the 'Fleet'. 'Holborn Bridge' and 'Holborn Viaduct' cross the Fleet. Temple Bar is not the source for any stream. The earlier sources you cite were very confused and probably meant 'Holborn Bar' and then offered both as a compounded and ignorant compromiseHave you never wondered why, for example, neither Chancery Lane nor Fetter Lane are not, and never have been, called 'Holborn'? Any other changes are regarded as wilful vandalism. 79.72.72.253 (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)79.72.72.253 (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As the nineteenth century traffic overpass and the embanked ground around it seems to be the cause of confusion, "Holborn Viaduct" replaced with "Holborn Bridge", as in the source. --Old Moonraker (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are confused by the various public works over the centuries. 79.72.72.253 (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S) Continuously deleting correct information replacing ill researched and ill-informed cited and irrelevant information is vandalism and has been reverted. 79.72.72.253 (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)
 * Continuously deleting strongly cited and relevant information is vandalism and has been reverted. Contributors should remember to confine their comments to the article, and not make personal observations about other editors. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for re-inserting the material. I agree that the "Temple Bar" version is probably wrong and I will re-order the para to give more prominence to the "Fleet" version. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, not 'prominence' to 'Fleet version' - the only river in these parts is the Fleet. There is no separate river called 'Holborn'. In fact we have an early reference to the local church as 'St Andrew's Holburnestrate', Holborn Street is the earliest name we have for the area, a street leading to the bourne (a stream) which is the upper part of the river, which at its juncture with the Thames (a fleot/ fleet) is called Fleet. The City acquired an Act for its major public works, called the Holborn Valley Improvement Scheme and the valley is what is the Fleet. Has it not occured to you as to why any river should spring forth in the middle of the street? Your sources are incoherent on this and many other points of detail. It isn't authoritave just because they make it up. No serious historian has any reliance on these works. 79.72.72.253 (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S) The Holborn is not lost, it's where it has always been, and its course is not uncertain, we know that it rises at Hampstead and flows into the Thames. 79.72.72.253 (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)

OH NO !!! I wondered why you had not already quoted the discredited John Stow. Why don't you cite Walt Disney as well?. Stow is probably the originator of the story and your other later commentators just copied him. 79.72.72.253 (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)
 * John Stow, in his notable and historically valuable Survey of London, is the likely originator of the account, as the IP editor suggests, but that's the point of WP:V: the article isn't saying that there was this stream, it's reporting the various accounts of how Holborn got its name. This is a basic difference. While I'm here, should I add John Strype, the eighteenth century historian and map maker, who also reports the "Old Bourne" version? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, agreed - we'll draw a line under this last edit of yours. Strype was relying on Stow - always a bad idea. 79.72.72.253 (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)
 * OK, no Strype. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I am totally defeated here by the "verifiability not truth" policy on Wikipedia: because this edit is soundly referenced, it must stand. However, I can only urge that readers wanting to use the true  refer to  the earlier edit. This previous version I can verify only from the totally unacceptable WP:NOR of having worked there, and lived just up the Grays Inn Road, for seven years. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * More here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Luckily the BBC definitively requires the " ", so it has been reinstated. The Rough Guide version retained, with a brief historical note. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest I mostly hear Hoebun and Holburn. Sometimes Holborn. Nothing in between. I don't think the Hoeburn, rather than Hoebun pronunciation is true RP, far more likely a symptom of the general late twentieth century fashion of avoiding the schwa. The same sort of phenomenon can be observed in the tendency to pronounce Avon as /eivon/ instead of the more traditional /eivən/ and even to make "Charlotte" rhyme with "dot". All original research I know, but considering the fact that sources exist for both, I suggest they both belong here. Do you have a url for the BBC ref? --81.108.132.76 (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's a BBC print publication, but the URL for their "less formal" article is given. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, maybe some more detail would be good in order to make a ref possible. Does it have an ISBN for instance, or a publication date and place? Re IPA: the pronunciation in the cited source is a phonetic transcription but Wikipedia has its own consistent phonemic conventions laid out in WP:IPAEN, which are a little different and must be used throughout (see WP:MOSIPA), regardless of whether the article is written in GB or US English. Those conventions require that /oʊ/ be used throughout for the vowel sound heard in "know". An explanation of how these conventions are realised in individual languages is given in this article. If you look in the chart you'll see that RP /əʊ/ corresponds with Wikipedia's /oʊ/. No allowance is made for /əʊ/. A simple logical deduction (not original research) allows other conventions used in other dictionaries and guides to be rewritten to comply with MOS, regaredless of what the cited sources say. --81.108.134.111 (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ISBN etc all in the footnotes. I'd wouldn't want to change the text to something the source doesn't say—it's akin to changing a quote for a more convenient fit to an article—but I can see that clicking on the link and finding the symbol combination at the other end would be useful.--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I must have missed them. I think the pronunciaton needs to be changed to comply with MOS. It's really akin to converting a source in miles to one in kilometres. But if you want to use an alternative phonetic convention you can write it in square brackets without using the linking template. Also, my interpretation of the "(r)" is that the BBC has no view about whether it's "burn" or "bun". --86.25.239.129 (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there scope for using the WP-preferred format in the text, but using the accurate transcript from the source in the note—note [a] at the time of writing—at the end of the article? This would make the link work, without misrepresenting the source work where its link actually actually connects.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I agree a direct quotation should be just that. I wouldn't use any template though (the template is actually altering the quote by inserting "pronounced..."). Maybe a link to the mainspace International Phonetic Alphabet or IPA chart for English dialects articles. --86.25.239.129 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Paved 1417?
Seems to have been paved in 1417 by Henry V, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QFkMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=%22as+well+to+the+king%27s+carriages+passing+that+way,+as+to+those+of+his+subjects.%22&source=bl&ots=Iqqe1ztGyE&sig=5Poxs9emAPZQT8OD-Bmo2uj3rS8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJqbv-4_7TAhXGCMAKHWuDAfUQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=%22as%20well%20to%20the%20king's%20carriages%20passing%20that%20way%2C%20as%20to%20those%20of%20his%20subjects.%22&f=false CitizenLit (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holborn. 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/20080726084958/http://www.timeout.com/london/bars/features/1614.html to http://www.timeout.com/london/bars/features/1614.html

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) 20:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Holborn


text:
Talk:Holloway, London

Wow!
09.11, he quietly sneaks in a citation needed tag - two hours later the whole thing's rewrit and smartened up. Impressive Kbt. hjuk 13:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge?
Well, my reasoning for the merger is that the two places are in fact one. Just Nag's Head is a road junction in the centre so i think it should only have a separate section. Simply south (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Support I agree. --Buyoof (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - it's an important road junction, but probably doesn't justify a separate existence in wiki. Kbthompson (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - but Nag's Head is a well known place in Holloway so it should be well addressed in the Holloway article. Rogwan (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Charing Cross
Every so often someone comes along and changes the distance from CX. The article does not define the boundaries of Holloway and it's shown as a point on the map. The coords stated in the info box (51.5570N, 0.1173W) is over Selby's which is 3.3 miles north of CX. Confused. --Alastair Rae (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it normal for Wikipedia articles to show the home addresses of celebrities? Just never seen it before. Apart from personal security, there is the question of accuracy in case someone else now lives there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.28.231 (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't normal. Derekbd (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Holloway today
This section appears to have been written either by Foxtons or by someone desperate to talk their house price up! I've lived here for 17 years, and find no mention of the fact that it's grimy, traffic-choked, dominated by junk shops and bad takeaways and (to put the most positive spin I can muster) "edgey"! --81.141.147.45 (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles are supposed to be citation-driven. There's no cite given for either the Foxton's or the boot on the ground view. --Chuunen Baka (talk  • contribs) 16:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Unlabeled map
When you click on the map, the location labels go away. There's no way to zoom in while also seeing the text. Countytime (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Holloway, London


text:
Talk:Homerton

Untitled
Grief, that pic is dark. Was likely trying for some sort of gothic look, which would have worked better when the place was derelict and had a tree growing out of the roof. Sadly don't have a pic from then. Will fix it shortly, anyway.

Tarquin Binary 15:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I was born within the shaddows of the Hackney Hospital living at 63 Mabley St for 35 years, actually buying the house in 1964, then moving to Essex for 5years, before coming in 1974 to New Zealand. My visits back home, always leads me to walking around the old locality with nostalgia, and a visit I had in 1995, I witnessed the closing of the old Hackney Hospital, and I have a pix showing the tree growing in the guttering of one of the towers that accommedated the ablutions. Hacney Hospital played a big part in the lives of my family; my three children were born there. I was admitted there right on the last day of the war,(VJ day,)and having to watch from the window the festivities going on in my street below. Most of my extended family were treated in the Hackney Hospital for one thing or another, my mother dying there in 1945. After 1945 the high wall around the outside of the hospital. Kenworthy Road/Homerton High St, that like all London buildings were blackened with ages of soot, was scrubbed clean with what I believed was pumice stone. How long it took I cannot recall, but it must have been months No waterblasters in those days Ray Jones,6 October 2005

Hi folks, split out 'historical homerton' and commenced writing - requires sub-editing and completion - but the task is begun! Kevin Thompson, July 31st 2006

Joseph Priestley
Some of the information given here, together with the ext link re plaques, has now been added to the Joseph Priestley article itself. The brown plaque at the corner of Clapton Passage and Lower Clapton Road seems to be just about visible on Google Street View. It's above the sign for "Danny's Motor Shop" at co-ords 51.5523, -0.0526. But would the house at 113 Lower Clapton Lane have had the same address in 1791? Does anyone have access to any maps of that period? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homerton. 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/20060926203506/http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/tudorhackney/localhistory/loch.asp to http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/tudorhackney/localhistory/loch.asp

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) 07:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Homerton


text:
Talk:Hornchurch

WW2
Oops, I didn't mean to remove the WW2 info... Thanks for putting it back :) Lezek

Oxford?
The history section says: "The lands were then given to Lord Chancellor William Wykeham who made major renovations to the church. He subsequently gave Hornchurch to Oxford". Does this mean Oxford University? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 47.251.0.13 (talk • contribs).
 * Yes - and that's the manor itself - so, the university would receive income from the manor. The vicarage would also be paid for, and in the gift of a college of the university. VCH has which one. Kbthompson (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * New College, Oxford Kbthompson (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Image

 * That would be because the Scots also adopted the flag of St Andrew - to whom the church is dedicated ... Kbthompson (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ho'church/Hornchurch
Thanks for this addition, however, to my mind it seems a little dubious.
 * 1) This derivation of the name doesn't appear in Brit History online. (Victoria History of the County of Essex - that would be the official history).
 * 2) The mother church, of the priory is also described as Monasterium Cornutum ie church with horns (Hornchurch: Religious history, A History of the County of Essex: Volume 7 (1978), pp. 46-51). Seems a little pre sentient to adopt a name, recorded here by 1163, to a story about a woman who lived 1348-1400
 * 3) From VCH, On the eastern gable of the chancel is the carved stone head of a Highland bull with hollow copper horns. It was first mentioned in 1824, though 'points of lead fashioned like horns', apparently in the same position, can be traced back to 1610. The place-name 'Horned church' occurs by the 13th century. The church may have had horn-like gables, or have been surmounted by features resembling horns, possibly associated with the local leather industry. When the horns became associated with a bull is not known. A bull's head appears on the seal of the prior of Hornchurch in 1384–5, and by 1719 New College was providing an annual feast of 'bull and brawn.

To summarise, the Latin version occurred prior to the 12th century, version of the Anglicised name by the 13th - the story about the woman, not before the 14th. So, unlikely, then. No matter, that it appears to be ref'd to 19th century directories and believed by the local council ... Kbthompson (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rephrased to make clear it is unlikely. Not sure it is worthy of inclusion - unless the fable can be predated to before the adoption of Hornchurch - ie foundation of the monastery. Kbthompson (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

White Hart
Still there?andycjp (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hornchurch. 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/20110604093935/http://www.london.gov.uk/archive/mayor/planning/srdf/docs/east-srdf.pdf to http://www.london.gov.uk/archive/mayor/planning/srdf/docs/east-srdf.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219031529/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=379 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=379
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608192237/http://www.havering.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=2304&p=0 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=2304&p=0

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) 20:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hornchurch


text:
London Borough of Havering

The London Borough of Havering in East London, England, forms part of Outer London. It has a population of 259,552 inhabitants; the principal town is Romford, while other communities include Hornchurch, Upminster, Collier Row and Rainham. The borough is mainly suburban, with large areas of protected open space. Romford is a major retail and night time entertainment centre, and to the south the borough extends into the London Riverside redevelopment area of the Thames Gateway. The name Havering is a reference to the Royal Liberty of Havering which occupied the area for several centuries. The local authority is Havering London Borough Council. It is the easternmost London borough.

The neighbouring districts (clockwise from south) are the London boroughs of Bexley (across the River Thames), Barking and Dagenham and Redbridge, the Essex districts of Epping Forest and Brentwood, and the unitary authority of Thurrock.

Early history
Modern settlement originated in Anglo-Saxon times when it consisted of Havering Palace and the surrounding lands that belonged to the king. The palace itself is known to have existed since at least the reign of Edward the Confessor when it was one of his primary residences. The area formed a liberty from 1465 which included the parishes of Havering-atte-Bower, Hornchurch and Romford.

The name Havering appears in documents from around the 12th century. The origins of this name have been debated by historians since the Middle Ages when it was linked to the legend of Edward the Confessor and a mystical ring returned to him by Saint John the Apostle. The event being commemorated in stained glass (from about 1407) in a chapel at Romford, that was dedicated to the king.

Settlement
London Underground and fast rail services to central London resulted in considerable residential land use mixed with designated parklands and farmland under the planning policy of the predecessor local authorities and current authority during the 20th century and into the early 21st century.

The development of the borough came in two distinct phases. The first middle class suburban developments were built in the late Victorian and Edwardian period. The garden suburbs of Upminster, Emerson Park and Gidea Park (also known as Romford Garden Suburb) were spurred on by the building of the railway lines through Havering from Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street in the late 19th century.

In the 1930s the District Line was electrified and extended to Upminster with new stations at Elm Park and Upminster Bridge. Also at this time new industries near the area such as the Ford Motor Company plant at Dagenham caused a new wave of mostly working class developments along the route of the new Underground line. In addition to this, to the north of the borough, the large housing estates of Harold Hill and Collier Row were constructed to deal with the chronic housing shortages and early slum clearance programmes in central London.

Administrative history
The borough was created in 1965 under the London Government Act 1963, covering the combined area of the former Municipal Borough of Romford and Hornchurch Urban District. The area was transferred from Essex to Greater London to become one of the 32 London Boroughs.

Romford had been a local board district from 1851. It was converted into an urban district in 1894, was enlarged in 1934 to take in the neighbouring parishes of Havering-atte-Bower and Noak Hill, and was incorporated to become a municipal borough in 1937.

The parish of Hornchurch had been made an urban district in 1926, which was enlarged in 1934 to take in the parishes of Cranham, Great Warley, Rainham, Upminster and Wennington.

The new borough was named after the former Royal Liberty of Havering, which had covered a similar area.

Districts

This pattern of the 'garden suburb' with inter- and post-war private housing developments occurred widely across the borough, with small estates of social housing representing a low percentage of housing in any single council ward; six of the 30 electoral wards with fewer than 2% social housing are in the borough: Hylands, Mawneys, Pettits, Hacton and the two wards forming Upminster, Cranham and Upminster Ward. Plans to extend existing developments in much of the borough are blocked as open land is protected as part of the Metropolitan Green Belt. In contrast, the southern part of Havering adjacent to the Thames is within the London Riverside section of the Thames Gateway redevelopment area. New open spaces and large scale house building to provide an entirely new residential community is planned.

The most built-up areas are the traditional garden suburb districts of Hornchurch, Emerson Park, Gidea Park, Harold Wood, Romford and Upminster. These places have developed over the last hundred years to form a large area of continuous urban sprawl with indistinct boundaries.

A 2017 study found that, when comparing low-end rent to low-end earnings, private rented housing in Havering is the most affordable of any London borough.

Named neighbourhoods are the developments of Ardleigh Green, Chase Cross, Collier Row, Elm Park, Harold Hill, Rainham. The borough's exurbs with green buffers of farmland or parkland are:

 * Havering-atte-Bower
 * North Ockendon
 * Noak Hill
 * Wennington

Governance
The local authority is Havering Council, based at Havering Town Hall (formerly Romford Town Hall) in Romford.

Havering elects 55 councillors from 20 wards: • #Beam Park (2)

• #Cranham (3)

• #Elm Park (3)

• #Emerson Park (2)

• #Gooshays (3)

• #Hacton (2)

• #Harold Wood (3)

• #Havering-atte-Bower (3)

• #Heaton (3)

• #Hylands & Harrow Lodge (3)

• #Marshalls & Rise Park (3)

• #Mawneys (3)

• #Rainham & Wennington (3)

• #Rush Green & Crowlands (3)

• #South Hornchurch (2)

• #Squirrels Heath (3)

• #St Alban's (2)

• #St Andrew's (3)

• #St Edward's (3)

• #Upminster (3)

Greater London representation
For elections to the Greater London Council, the borough formed the Havering electoral division, electing three members. In 1973 it was divided into the single-member Hornchurch, Romford and Upminster electoral divisions. The Greater London Council was abolished in 1986.

Since 2000, for elections to the London Assembly, the borough forms part of the Havering and Redbridge constituency.

UK Parliament
Until 2010 the borough was split between the parliamentary constituencies of Hornchurch, Romford and Upminster with the three constituencies entirely within the borough. At the 2010 United Kingdom general election, the boundaries of these constituencies changed to a new Hornchurch and Upminster constituency and Rainham became part of the new cross-borough Dagenham and Rainham constituency.

Population
In 2011, the borough had a population of 237,232 over 43 sqmi. Havering has a lower population density than other London Boroughs as large areas are parkland and 23 sqmi (more than half the borough) is Metropolitan Green Belt protected land. Those areas of development are extensive but rarely intensive. It has, at 4.5%, a below average unemployment rate for Greater London, and one of the lowest crime rates.

Havering has a significantly higher proportion of residents in white ethnic groups than other outer London boroughs (87.7% – 2011 census). The Black African population is the most significant minority ethnic group in Havering (3.2%). The Upminster ward of the borough is the third least ethnically diverse in Greater London, with a Simpson's diversity index of 1.10.

Religion
The following table shows the religious identity of residents residing in Havering.

Industry and commerce
There are over 7,000 businesses based in Havering. Romford is the main commercial hub of the borough with a small district of mainly office development close to the railway station. There is also some industry to the south between Rainham and the River Thames such as Rainham Steel headquarters on the boundary of Elm Park. Light industry elsewhere in the borough has been in decline, with major employers such as the former Star Brewery now closed down. New industrial development is encouraged in the south of the borough has been encouraged by the London Development Agency (now GLA Land and Property), with the opening of the Centre for Engineering and Manufacturing Excellence.

The main retail district is also located in Romford with several interconnected or neighbouring shopping arcades including the Liberty Shopping Centre, the Mercury Mall, and the Brewery. Romford Market is located to the north of Romford and is the largest market within the borough and in the surrounding area. Hornchurch and Upminster are the other main retail centres with extensive high street shopping areas.

Romford has a developed night-time economy with one of the highest concentrations of bars and nightclubs anywhere in Greater London outside the West End with public transport radiating into all parts of the borough.

Havering London Borough Council applied to the Government to allow a 'super-casino' to be built in the south of the borough, however the application was rejected in May 2006.

Roads
The M25 motorway forms part of the borough boundary to the east with North Ockendon the only settlement to fall outside. The A12 (near Romford) and the A13 (near Rainham) are the main trunk radial routes from central London and are located to the north and south of the borough respectively. The A127 trunk route to Southend begins at Gallows Corner; which also forms the eastern end of the A118 local artery from Stratford. The A124 local artery from Canning Town terminates at Upminster.

Public transport
The District line of the London Underground runs roughly east–west through the middle of the borough and there is an extensive network of London Bus routes, linking all districts to Romford and other places beyond the borough. The London, Tilbury and Southend line (operated by c2c) passes through the borough in two places and the Great Eastern Main Line passes through the north of the borough serving Romford, Gidea Park and Harold Wood. Elizabeth line runs stopping services via the GEML, and Greater Anglia operate non-stop services running straight through these stations. There is also a branch line from Romford to Upminster which is currently operated by London Overground. There are proposals for transport improvements in the south of the borough where the population is expected to rise.

Modernisation of railway transport in Havering
In May 2015, stopping services operated by Abellio Greater Anglia at the time, were replaced by Transport for London's new railway service, TfL Rail. These services ran new Class 345 trains, and occasionally some older Class 315 services. In May 2022, TfL Rail was rebranded as Elizabeth line, and all Class 315 trains were scrapped.

Travel to work
In March 2011, the main forms of transport that residents used to travel to work were: driving a car or van, 31.8% of all residents aged 16–74; train, 11.9%; underground, metro, light rail, tram, 6.3%; bus, minibus or coach, 5.1%; on foot, 4.1%; work mainly at or from home, 2.4%; passenger in a car or van, 2.1%.

Media
The local newspapers in Havering are The Havering Daily and the Romford Recorder.

Bedrock Radio is a charity run community health & Hospital radio station located within the Queen's Hospital in Romford.

The first Hospital Radio Service In Havering began broadcasting in 1964 as Harold Wood Radio. Today, Bedrock Radio serves the community by broadcasting online and to Queen's, King George & Goodmayes Hospitals and features information about the Hospitals and NHS services, promotes charitable and community organisations and has an extensive local events guide featuring community non-profit events.

Time 107.5 FM is the commercial radio station broadcasting to Havering and surrounding areas and features local news.

Places of interest

 * The Diver
 * Brookside Theatre
 * Langtons
 * Liberty Shopping Centre
 * Queen's Theatre
 * RAF Hornchurch Heritage Centre
 * Rainham Hall – National Trust house in Rainham
 * Romford Market
 * Romford Garden Suburb
 * Upminster Windmill
 * Upminster Tithe Barn Museum of Nostalgia

Sport and leisure
The London Borough of Havering has several sporting clubs:
 * Football
 * Romford F.C., a Non-League football club who play at Rookery Hill, Corringham.
 * A.F.C. Hornchurch, a Non-League football club who play at Hornchurch Stadium
 * Ice hockey
 * Romford Raiders, an ice hockey team who play at Romford Ice Arena.
 * Field hockey
 * Havering Hockey Club, who play at Campion school

Twinning
Havering is twinned with:
 * Ludwigshafen, Germany
 * Hesdin, France

Education
The Borough is the education authority for the district providing education in a mix of foundation, community and voluntary aided schools. There are also a number of academies.

Havering Adult College provides part-time day, evening and weekend adult education (19+) from sites throughout the borough. Havering Sixth Form College provides sixth form education for pupils of borough schools as well as those who are resident in the borough. Havering College of Further and Higher Education provides part-time and full-time education to students aged 14+.

A 2017 study by Trust for London and the New Policy Institute found that 52% of adults in Havering lack Level 3 Qualifications (A Level equivalent) – the worst level of any London borough. 44% of 19 year olds in Havering also lacked these qualifications – the second worst level in the capital.

Health Care
The Borough of Havering is serviced by The Barking Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust.

Provisions of Accident and Emergency from Queens Hospital, Romford. During the 2019/2020 financial year Queens hospital received 309,551 patients into the A&E department.

title: London Borough of Havering


text:
Talk:Hornsey

Harringay
Note: It is correct to say that it's in the borough of Haringey. (Someone had removed this.) The nearby place on Green Lanes is spelt Harringay. Nevilley 09:08 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Photo
I was unhappy about the photo of Hornsey Town Hall being on this page, as it's not even in Hornsey. If we had a page on the former Hornsey Council, who built it, that would be a better place for it as it's misleading here. For now, I have linked to it from Crouch End and removed it from here. If I can get a Hornsey photo for here, I will. --Nevilley 15:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hornsey is not Hornsey village
I know this is confusing - I live in Hornsey - but the village takes its name from the parish area, which is and always was much bigger, not the other way round!

The Victoria County History, Pevsner and other authoritities make this clear as well as all the far-flung old places like Hornsey Park north-west of Highgate, Hornsey Road in Finsbury Park, Hornsey Lane etc. I have edited and added to the page and aded links to try and disambiguate the confusion. There could be a separate article about Hornsey Village, but Hornsey by itself should refer to its correct historical area.

So it was quite correct to show the photo of Hornsey Town Hall, the former administrative centre of the area! --Straw Cat 02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hornsey Co-ordinates
I notice that you've recently deleted a duplicate set of co-ordinates on the Hornsey page. The reason I'd put them in there was to try and get the article scraped by Google Earth. I had a dicussion with Kbthompson and a number of other editors about this some months ago to try and get to the bottom of why some articles were being picked up and others not. The consesus was no-one knew. Certain co-ordinate tags seemd to work on some pages but not others. What I'd done to Hornsey succesfully got it scraped. It seems a shame to undo that. I'd say the more London places we can get picked up the better. I wonder, until there's a better understanding of what exactly works and what doesn't, might I suggest we just leave the dup co-ordiantes on the Honsey page for the time being - at least it's working with Google Earth. hjuk (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I've tried another template. Hopefully this one works. We need to find a solution that does not result in the 'fudge' of two layers of data, one printed over the other. MRSC • Talk 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Agreed that we need to find another template. However, since the Hornsey one's working, do you think it would make sense to leave that one as was and try the new template on another page? hjuk (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Since I haven't heard back from you, can I take it that you're happy for me to revert? hjuk (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

 * How is the replacement template (template:Coord) working out? As I said before, the problem of the overlaying of one set of figures over the other is more concerning than propblems with Google Earth. Is this template picked up by it? MRSC • Talk 13:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

 * GE only scrapes occasionally. SO we won't know the HOrnsey link's broken till it's broken. Then fixing it seems to real hit and miss. What problems does duplicating cause by the way? hjuk (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to break in. Google Earth apparently does a run processing articles picking up instances of ; the problem with is that the call to coord is NOT on the article page (which is not expanded until reatime).
 * There were suggestions that the call to coord could be made directly in UK place - thereby getting the parameters 'scraped' - however those params are also needed by the mapping function. Another point to notice is that UK place doesn't use the recommended params (something like WP:GEO standards). That's the executive summary of what I found out - at that point I realised there were too many changes to UK place to contemplate and wandered off to find something less difficult to do! Kbthompson (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

 * In this version at the top right hand corner of the screen there is one set of co-ords overlayed in a kind of "fudge". MRSC • Talk 15:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

With the additional |display=inline, header display of the co-ords should be suppressed. I agree it is unsatisfactory to have the co-ords in two places (even if not printing over the top of each other). The 'scrape' occurs approximately once a quarter, due to impact on the server. Kbthompson (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rejig
Not sure what the rejig by Jza84 achieved, so have undone. It's easier to find info as was. Jza84 if there's a particular reason or Wiki policy which is driving you to make the changes it wd be helpful if you could outline it/them and perhaps we can agree the best solution. hjuk (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

N8
Surely the boundaries of Hornsey continue to be those of N8? Always were in the 30ish years when I lived there! The address was always given as (for example) Crouch End, Hornsey, London N8. Incidentally where is Rokesly Road, is it new? Pterre (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's better! Pterre (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Having been a resident for some years, I agreed with you that that is the most common and third-party-referable definition. The area round the old church also is sometimes called for want of anything else, Hornsey - often with "village" added. But unless some third-party sources are found, naming any boundaries must be impressionistic.

 * There's no such place as Rokesly Road; there is an Avenue between Tottenham Lane and Middle Lane.--Straw Cat (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I spent several years walking to Rokesly school along it. Er, well you know what I mean. Rokesly Avenue is probably a reasonable boundary for Crouch End, but in many minds Crouch End remains a part of Hornsey. Pterre (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Lotus Cars
As I understand it Lotus was located behind what was then called the Railway Hotel. Presumably this is now the Wishing Well mentioned in the article. Pterre (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hornsey depot
As this page is linked from Hornsey depot (qv) it would be helpful if a brief explanation of what Hornsey Depot is was added here - it seems to have got some coverage eg

 * http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/news/hornsey_depot_plans_approved_despite_only_four_councillors_voting_in_favour_1_3283164
 * http://www.hamhighbroadway.co.uk/news/decision_on_hornsey_depot_deferred_1_3230961
 * http://www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/news/10989849.Controversial_Hornsey_Depot_plans_approved/

eg this http://hornseydepot.com/

Thanks.Prof.Haddock (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hornsey College of Art
Although no longer in existence as an independent entity, the Art School of Hornsea had quite a colourful reputation in the 1960s. I'm surprised that it doesn't merit a paragraph. Twizzlemas (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See Hornsey College of Art. Somewhere along the line the link seems to have been lost. Pterre (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hornsey. 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 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120904073421/http%3A//www.haringey.gov.uk/hornsey%2Dtown%2Dhall%2Dhour%2Din%2Dthe%2Dspotlight.htm to http://www.haringey.gov.uk/hornsey-town-hall-hour-in-the-spotlight.htm

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) 20:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hornsey