Talk:Colney Hatch

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge?

Colney Hatch is about a lunatic asylum (now closed). New Southgate is a suburb (still open). So I say keep separate. The difficulty is that Colney Hatch straddles two London boroughs. If Karada is keen to merge, I suggest move this article to Friern Barnet and expand it appropriately. I would refer to Hugh Petrie for arbitration (he has got a life, ie. he does not live on Wikipedia, but email would reach him). -- 05:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC) sock puppet for RHaworth[reply]

Technically speaking New Southgate only came into being with the opening of the railway in the early 1850s, and the name was not popular until twenty years later, and was as an alternative to Colney Hatch, which was already noted as a mental institution. As such it would appear that Colney Hatch and New Southgate are the same place. However they are not the same place, as New Southgate as a popular description, and as the Anglican Parish of St Pauls, covers an area which is greater than Colney Hatch, and includes lesser places like Betstyle and Brunswick Park (which traditionally is not even in the same county as Colney Hatch. Further there are places in Colney Hatch, such as Colney Hatch Lane and Summers Lane, which are definatley not in New Southgate. I agree with RHaworth moving Colney Hatch to Friern Barnet would be historically and geographically right. PS some residents still use the place name Colney Hatch, but its use is deminishing. Hugh Petrie.

Does Colney Hatch exist?

Where is the evidence, please, for the existence of a district by this name? I am not 100% convinced that it is real, and would love to see the evidence. Thanks. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Colney Hatch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080203211650/http://www.enfield.gov.uk:80/448/New%20Southgate%20A%20History.htm to http://www.enfield.gov.uk/448/New%20Southgate%20A%20History.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colney Hatch. 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/20100209042803/http://www.barnet.gov.uk/index/leisure-culture/libraries/archives/archives-histories/archives-finchleyhistories/archives-finchley-colneyhatch.htm to http://www.barnet.gov.uk/index/leisure-culture/libraries/archives/archives-histories/archives-finchleyhistories/archives-finchley-colneyhatch.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]