![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I plan to add some images to this reference. Is there anything in particular people not local to this place think would be usefull to see? Yes,Maybe photos of the semi rural areas of Edmonton such as the River Lee and the William Girling reservoir. Northmetpit 15:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
"Often refered to as the town of Edmonton"
I'm taking this out - I've been living in Edmonton since 1988 and I've never heard anybody say any such thing! BTLizard
Hi folks, I would not quarrel with the latest edit by user IMC in removing "historical" from the first sentence where it formerly said "The man-made River Lee Diversion .. forms the .. historical boundary between Middlesex and Essex." because as IMC says, the original boundary was the original river Lea, not the man-made diversion. But.. The lead sentence now says "The man-made River Lee Diversion .. forms the .. boundary between Middlesex and Essex.", which ceased to be true in 1965 with implementation of the London Government Act 1963. Can anyone suggest a better wording for this? Pterre ( talk) 13:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually created the Lower Edmonton web site that is used as a reference for the comment and it does look rather garbled. However surely the issue is what on earth the comment is doing in the first paragraph anyway. What is so important about the eastern boundary? Grunson ( talk) 13:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
No changes to the physical Middlesex/Essex border took place in 1965. The Local Government Act merely redefined ADMINISTRATIVE boundaries, just as the later 1974 local-government reorganization changed only administrative boundaries, not actual county boundaries. 87.115.88.67 ( talk) 21:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I've taken that section out. As you say the diversion of the river was never the boundary, and as such a boundary no longer exists, it should be dealt with (if at all) in the 'history' section, not the introductory paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.182.112 ( talk) 00:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The ( WP:EL) guideline says that external links should be kept to a minimum, they should contain encyclopaedic material which can't be included in the article for copyright reasons. The links must be directly relevant the the subject of the article. Links that should be avoided ( WP:ELNO): links that are there just to promote a website, personal websites, sites which are too general (in this case the whole borough not just Edmonton) and sites which are too specific (in this case schools, parks not the whole of Edmonton). Also WP:ELBURDEN says "Disputed links should be excluded by default until there is a consensus to include them." Grim23 ★ 16:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Grim23 ★. Thanks for reply. I have just gone through the external links and do understand that check on unwelcome links has to be done. The links here all contain useful and relevant information and add to the article. ( Northmetpit ( talk) 08:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)).
Non-notable primary school Tacyarg ( talk) 22:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Sirfurboy, you told me that Edmonton is "historically" a town. But its historically. It now is a London suburb. The opening description even says "District of London". 2A02:C7C:B459:F500:79B1:190A:9290:6836 ( talk) 16:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I plan to add some images to this reference. Is there anything in particular people not local to this place think would be usefull to see? Yes,Maybe photos of the semi rural areas of Edmonton such as the River Lee and the William Girling reservoir. Northmetpit 15:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
"Often refered to as the town of Edmonton"
I'm taking this out - I've been living in Edmonton since 1988 and I've never heard anybody say any such thing! BTLizard
Hi folks, I would not quarrel with the latest edit by user IMC in removing "historical" from the first sentence where it formerly said "The man-made River Lee Diversion .. forms the .. historical boundary between Middlesex and Essex." because as IMC says, the original boundary was the original river Lea, not the man-made diversion. But.. The lead sentence now says "The man-made River Lee Diversion .. forms the .. boundary between Middlesex and Essex.", which ceased to be true in 1965 with implementation of the London Government Act 1963. Can anyone suggest a better wording for this? Pterre ( talk) 13:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually created the Lower Edmonton web site that is used as a reference for the comment and it does look rather garbled. However surely the issue is what on earth the comment is doing in the first paragraph anyway. What is so important about the eastern boundary? Grunson ( talk) 13:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
No changes to the physical Middlesex/Essex border took place in 1965. The Local Government Act merely redefined ADMINISTRATIVE boundaries, just as the later 1974 local-government reorganization changed only administrative boundaries, not actual county boundaries. 87.115.88.67 ( talk) 21:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I've taken that section out. As you say the diversion of the river was never the boundary, and as such a boundary no longer exists, it should be dealt with (if at all) in the 'history' section, not the introductory paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.182.112 ( talk) 00:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The ( WP:EL) guideline says that external links should be kept to a minimum, they should contain encyclopaedic material which can't be included in the article for copyright reasons. The links must be directly relevant the the subject of the article. Links that should be avoided ( WP:ELNO): links that are there just to promote a website, personal websites, sites which are too general (in this case the whole borough not just Edmonton) and sites which are too specific (in this case schools, parks not the whole of Edmonton). Also WP:ELBURDEN says "Disputed links should be excluded by default until there is a consensus to include them." Grim23 ★ 16:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Grim23 ★. Thanks for reply. I have just gone through the external links and do understand that check on unwelcome links has to be done. The links here all contain useful and relevant information and add to the article. ( Northmetpit ( talk) 08:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)).
Non-notable primary school Tacyarg ( talk) 22:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Sirfurboy, you told me that Edmonton is "historically" a town. But its historically. It now is a London suburb. The opening description even says "District of London". 2A02:C7C:B459:F500:79B1:190A:9290:6836 ( talk) 16:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)