Jump to content

Talk:Croydon

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

Government Status

[edit]

The quote put in the lead "part of the London conurbation, rather than a place with a character and identity of its own" , comes from the body of the article. Why should a citation be needed |date=August 2014 in the lead, as requested by A P Monblat rather than in the body? The quote seems important concerning Croydon not getting city status. SovalValtos (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In context in the body of the article where the City bid is discussed at some length, that statement might have been acceptable, as it is a quote of someone's judgement, and not presented as unalloyed fact. It was clearly the way the judges explained their decision. It is definitely not sufficiently notable an opinion to be singled out for repetition in the lead. The fact that Croydon is part of London is already made perfectly clear at the very beginning of the lead. There is absolutely no need to underline that fact by quoting twice in one article what someone said 22 years ago. A P Monblat (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Population stats: defining the town

[edit]
The 24 wards of the London Borough of Croydon

Re recent edits by IPs concerning the population of Croydon, I am reverting to the original version (per WP:BRD), and opening a discussion here.

Here are the facts. This article is about the town, the urban settlement, of Croydon. It isn't about any of the other larger administrative areas that have also been called "Croydon" – the ancient parish, the County Borough of Croydon, or the London Borough of Croydon – though it necessarily includes limited discussion of them in places.

The town isn't a formal entity, so it doesn't have precise boundaries. It was a formal entity in the middle ages and early modern period, when it was defined by the "four crosses" (see "Status" section and note 43): it then extended from north to south along the length of the High Street (i.e. North End and South End were outside the town), west to Old Town and east to Park Lane. Say's 1785 map (in the article) shows that by the end of the 18th century it hadn't significantly outgrown those boundaries. It did, however, become much larger over the course of the 19th century. (I'm not seriously suggesting that we use a strict definition of the medieval town as the basis for this article, but it's a factor worth bearing in mind.) I'm unaware of any other formal definition of the town – of the Central business district (CBD), for example: if anybody does know one, that might be helpful here.

For purposes of counting the population, we are obliged to use ward boundaries. This article has, until recently, defined Croydon for population purposes as the Addiscombe, Broad Green and Fairfield wards, and therefore the population as 52,104. That seems about right to me: it includes the CBD, but excludes most of the residential "suburbs". Recent edits by two IPs have sought to add Selhurst, Ashburton, Woodside, Sanderstead, Purley, Selsdon and Ballards, Croham and Waddon wards, bringing the population total to 173,625. These edits are certainly unsatisfactory in their present state, as they fail to list the wards chosen, which is why I have reverted. Furthermore, in my opinion, they also define the town much too widely: although they exclude the far north, far south and far east of the London Borough, they include, for example, Purley and Sanderstead, which weren't within the ancient parish or the County Borough, and most of whose present-day residents, while paying their Council Tax to the London Borough of Croydon, would deny vehemently that they live in the town of Croydon.

Other opinions or evidence? GrindtXX (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to a Local government website, the population is 103,058 but this still does not include some of the suburbs which are still within the borough boundary. 94.12.156.72
OK: what local government website? If it's a reputable source, maybe we can cite it and live with that. GrindtXX (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is called Develop Croydon. But Ashburton, Woodside and Selsdon are still within the town's Boundary. Hidden London describes Selsdon as a southerly outpost of Croydon. While Woodside and Ashburton share the same postcode as Croydon and most residents would describe themselves as living in Addiscombe, one of the wards of Croydon Town centre. This brings Croydon's population to 146,241. Develop Croydon includes the wards of Addiscombe, Broad Green, Fairfield, Croham, Waddon and Selhurst. But when you include the residential suburbs of Ashburton, Woodside and Selsdon, the population is 146,241. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.156.72 (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some people may also include the Heathfield ward which brings the population up to 159,454. That is if Heathfield is included in Croydon's population.

This article is about the town. Stats for the borough belong on the borough article.Charles (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the borough, the borough is over twice the size and includes other towns like new addington or Norwood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.156.72 (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term town only applied to the County Borough of Croydon between 1889 and 1965, after which it became a London borough and ceased to be a 'town'. This article pertains to the neighbourhood of Croydon within the London Borough of Croydon. All articles for neighbourhoods of London refer to them as districts. As such, Croydon is a district of London (within the London Borough of Croydon), not a 'town'. Southlondoneye (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Town " is a very subjective expression to the people who live or work in a place or both work and live there. Residents,workers or other people who do nether of these things may treat a place as a town by shopping there or going to the theatre or watching sporting events there. There is also a sense of size and importance to somewhere called a town. People who use a place in these ways will call it "town." (This is different from calling it "a town" but the ideas are linked.) Someone who lives in Leicester or Coventry will call that place "town." People who live in Croydon who work there, shop for clothes and toys there and go to the Ashcroft Theatre regularly may call Croydon "town" but other people who only live there may call Central London "town." Difficulties in the definition of town occur where towns have joined together either because they have all grown together as with Wolverhampton,Dudley,Birmingham etc or where a dominant town, such as London, has expanded to engulf other towns nearby, such as Croydon, Kingston on Thames and Watford. Note of these three watford is not politically part of London but visually it is. History also plays a part. Croydon would have appeared to be a town in medieval or Georgian times whilst Purley and Wallington would have appeared as villages,whilst Addiscombe and New Addington did not then exist at all. Some residennts of Croydon object to being called "London" just as residents of Dudley object to being called " Birmingham." There is evidence of this in the way that editors of this page have regularly called Croydon a town or said it was part of Surrey rather than London. So where does this leave us? Croydon is definitely part of London; politically,visually and economically; but it does probably deserve to be called a town in a way that Purley, Addiscombe, Penge,Clapham and other similar districts of London are not towns. Spinney Hill (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The town of Croydon includes its neighbourhoods Addiscombe, Addington, Broad Green, Coombe, Forestdale, New Addington, Sanderstead, Selsdon, Shirley, and Waddon."
Where does this definition of the town come from? This issue arises with other areas of London too - it is confidently stated which wards are in the town, but no source is given. Cardinal 1962 (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Croydon facelift

[edit]

We really need a pic. This has to be the easiest one to acquire ever. Please? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Croydon. 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:

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

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) 23:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Croydon. 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:

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) 23:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Croydon. 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:

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) 11:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Croydon 2020 merge

[edit]

I've begun the task discussed in deciding whether to delete the article about Croydon Vision 2020, and merged in some projects. However, lots of citation links are broken, and I've probably overlooked worthy inclusions. One problem was sifting through projects to determine: (1) those which have already been built, (2) those for which plans have long been abandoned, and (3) those which remain viable. Meticulo (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut the reference to lower fares for public transport, as I couldn't find any sources to confirm the outcome of a campaign by local politicians mentioned here and here. Also, sources are still needed for the improvements promised for East Croydon train station. Meticulo (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a 'Timeline of publications on Croydon's development' - to include [1] and [2] - would be suitable. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of this merge, there is a Croydon future section in this article with a maintenance tag requesting expansion based on a deleted article. The maintenance tag is 3 years old. Looking at that whole subsection, I think it fails WP:10YEARTEST. There are always plans, but unless a plan is a very significant re-development, they are not really WP:DUE. More ticket barriers may be coming to a station, for instance, is not really what a reader looking for information on Croydon needs. I won't delete the whole section, although I would generally be comfortable with it going. I will remove the maintenance tag and some of the more trivial information. Asking here: is there really something more encyclopaedic we can say about the future of Croydon, or to ask whether the whole section can go (one or two snippets could be moved elsewhere). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Croydon is not in Surrey

[edit]

An editor made some changes that appeared confusing yesterday [3] so I attempted wording to clarify, but that has just been reverted [4]. This needs discussion because there is a widespread misconception that Croydon is in the "historic" county of Surrey. The edit summary of the revert says: Croydon stopped being a parish or part of the hundred of Wallington long before it became part of Greater London, which was in 1965, not 1962. Croydon is in the ceremonial county of Greater London, but is within the historic county boundaries of Surrey, hence why it is "common" to refer to it as part of Surrey.

There are a couple of issues I have here:

  1. reversion to this is unhelpful: [[South London|south]] [[London]] We have a page [[South London]] which is clearly the better target.
  2. This text: the town forms part of the historic county of Surrey will be read as saying that Croydon is in this "historic county" of Surrey, but, of course, it isn't because the counties are, indeed, historic. I know that should be obvious but I saw someone make that very point last week. There appears to be a belief that Croydon is in a thing known as a historic county, that being Surrey. It is common for people to refer to themselves as being in Surrey, but no part of Croydon has been in Surrey since 1965 and some for about a century longer.

Per WP:UKCOUNTIES, I note the guidance reads: 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. Continued use of the name of the county can be explained in the "Legacy" section. Surrey still exists, but Croydon is no longer part of it. Wikipedia does not take the minority view that counties still exist with their former boundaries.

Any wording that mentions Surrey in the lead must explain that Croydon was formerly in Surrey and is not now. This is the kind of useful information that Wikipedia should be supplying, rather than furthering a common misconception. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Variations on this argument come up again and again in articles on UK settlements all over Wikipedia. The relevant guidelines are at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Lead, which does recommend that the historic county should be mentioned in the lead. The situation is further complicated in the case of Croydon by the fact that it hasn't been part of the administrative county of Surrey since 1889 (when it became a County Borough), before becoming (with expanded boundaries) a London Borough in 1965. There's nothing wrong in principle with saying that Croydon is in the historic county of Surrey, as long as the reader clearly understands what a historic county is – but sadly, many don't. We therefore need wording that makes clear the distinction between the historic county (Surrey), the ceremonial county (Greater London), the administrative area (also Greater London), and the local authority district (London Borough of Croydon). Personally, I tend to agree that the historic county should be omitted from the first paragraph, but included in the second paragraph. See e.g. Kingston upon Thames for what seems to be a satisfactory form of words. GrindtXX (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No problem at all with mentioning the historical association with Surrey in the lead. My only concern is to ensure that any mention of Surrey is past tense, making it clear that it was in Surrey but is not now, as per guidance in WP:UKCOUNTIES. The Kingston lead does look like a good model, and I made a start at emulating it but we have a rather in depth historical second paragraph in the lead that complicates things. I could insert a new paragraph 2 but that looks like lead bloat. The cited information in the lead about Domesday book probably belongs in the main and not there. I saved my edit elsewhere and I will leave it alone for now to have a think about it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations

[edit]

I have just removed an edit on this. The edit was not particularly well phrased and I said it meant nothing. I was perhaps a little hasty but I can't send a message, I think, to apologise for abruptness as the editor has no user page. One problem with micronations as far as wikipedia is concerned is that by definition they are not noteable. Another is that the source quioted does not appear to me to be reliable ----although I may be wrong on that. If there is anything that . should be included in this article another source needs to be found. it needs to be explained better and micronations needs to be wikilinked. Has anything been put in the local press about them which supports the contention found in the source quoted that says there are many of them in Croydon?

You beat me to it. I was going to revert based on the sourcing, but when I sat down to do it, found you already had. We need a WP:RS to mention this, which would also show why (if) it is notable for a mention in this article. The source was a wiki which is not good enough, sorry. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Delta Point" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Delta Point has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 30 § Delta Point until a consensus is reached. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toponymy

[edit]

I have just deleted what appears to be a bit of longstanding WP:OR from the toponym section [5]. I find the argument quite plausible, and so am making sure there is a record of the deletion here. However it is unsourced. The citation request has sat there since 2017, and today an editor removed it without adding a source. I put it back and flagged that the Domesday Book, given as a reference, does not verify the speculation, only the existence of certain places in Kent that may be related (and it is not a great reference for that. Primary source, and no detail given). The claim itself remained unsourced. Half an hour later the citation request was removed again without explanation, so I have deleted the unsourced content.

This edit summary [6] leads me to wonder if the issue is a misunderstanding of the claim. The claim being made is that the name is Brittonic (i.e. insular Celtic) in origin and not Germanic. The quotation is all about a Germanic root that does not support the speculation.

Resolution: we need to know who had made this claim and where. Once we have the secondary source (if such exists), the information can go back, properly sourced. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article

[edit]

I feel that, with improvement, this could be a good article, and I am going to send this for review to GA after improvement so please improve this, before the new year.

Please tell me if this is ready for GA. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Croydon&oldid=1264363174"