Jump to content

Talk:Lower Clapton

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

Untitled

[edit]

The definition given of Lower Clapton here was largely wrong. Aside from the fact that it leaves Clapton Library, Hackney Downs and a couple of notable Clapton historical sites in limbo, being west of Lower Clapton Road, it also claims an important chunk of Homerton, including Homerton University Hospital (!).

I am not sure, in fact that very much of Chatsworth Road is in LC at all, but since the chunk I know to be definitely in Homerton is named Brooksby's Walk, I left this entry in, though I think it misleading to suggest that this is the centre of the area except in a very narrow geographical sense for an Lower Clapton extended to the Lea. Every area seems to want to extend themselves to the Lea - see the dreadful entry for Stoke Newington. (Older accounts have the eastern area north of Homerton next to the marshes as 'Clapton Park', it seems to have been enfolded into LC of late.)

There's plenty more to write about LC historically, hope to fill out this piece a lot soon.

Tarquin Binary 15:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, there's a basic problem with Hackney, in that it developed as a string of villages along the roads. Both upper and lower were a part of the village of Clopton, as this became ridiculously stretched out, the distinction came in to use. Homerton has much the same problem - being stretched out, but we've largely lost the distinction in that section. There are two sections for Clapton, and they seem to take their definition from the road leading to it, rather than geography.

Certainly, Brooksby's Walk was a part of Homerton, and I suspect development of Homerton would have proceeded up Chatsworth Rd, rather than down the hill from Lwr Clapton. Trouble is, these distinctions change over time. Chatsworth Rd was probably originally a path across the fields from Lower Homerton to Lee Bridge. The only meaningful way to look at it would be from the parish boundaries (when did Clapton get a parish?), or their sucessor political boundaries. I think medieval Clopton was centred around Brooke House - to the N of what is now the Lea Bridge roundabout. That makes things like the Round Chapel (in Chatham ward, the modern Homerton!) completely negotiable between Clapton, Central Hackney, and Homerton!

I'll hit the historical maps, sometime, but not hu

--Kbthompson 10:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From this Whitbread map from 1871 it seems that Brooksby's Walk spilled out from Homerton, and Chatsworth Rd and Clifden Rd seem a lot better connected to Lower Clapton, so the bottom of Chatsworth Rd seems a reasonable place to put the barrier between Clapton and Homerton historically. [1]

81.178.213.206 (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.victorianlondon.org/1871map/a15.htm

What about Clapton Park?

[edit]

Searching for "Clapton Park" redirects to the Lower Clapton page, but there is nothing about Clapton Park on the page (only in the discussion). What, pray, is the use of this? Could someone with knowledge of the subject put something about Clapton Park into the body of the article. Thank you. Zythophile (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of searching, but it seems like a pretty nondescript park. Hackney council doesn't even have a page for the park, unlike many others it maintains. see [1]. The redirect is probably leftover from a deleted article. Sorry I couldn't be more help. Grim23★ 18:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this helps, but Clapton Park is listed as the name of an Ecclesiastical parish created in 1873. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hackney_(parish)#Ecclesiastical_parish_subdivided Derekbd (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lower Clapton. 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) 23:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lower Clapton. 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) 02:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Upper Clapton

[edit]

The current Clapton, London is a superficial collection of a few paragraphs from both articles, created by a banned user. Since the Upper Clapton article says that Neither Upper Clapton nor the wider Clapton area have ever been an administrative unit and consequently their extent has never been formally determined, it sounds like a single Clapton article probably does make sense, but only if the entire contents of both of these articles are combined to make it, with Lower Clapton and Upper Clapton both redirecting to it. Does this sound like a good idea? Lord Belbury (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - Lord Belbury and I have discussed this already in the context of restoring articles damaged by said banned user and I strongly agree with the idea of merging these articles. Lower and Upper Clapton are used colloquially to distinguish between the areas of Clapton which are South and North of the Lea Bridge Roundabout, but that doesn't mean they warrant individual articles. We can always highlight this local distinction in the wider Clapton article, if needed. In any case there absolutley should not be three articles for Upper Clapton, Lower Clapton and Clapton TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've transferred most of the UC and LC content over, with some additions and adaptions. I think the articles could now be merged if that's the plan. Reluctant to do it myself in case that is not the idea - also not confident in the technique. The UC article is very good, the LC article pretty basic, but I think it would be worth a fresh pair of eyes making sure we don't lose anything of value before any merger. Best wishes.

About to attempt the redirect. Starting with the lower quality LC article, then moving on if there are no objections after. Previous unsigned comment was mine btw. Thanks AlasdairDaw (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Any update on this? Now that the Lower Clapton article has been merged an redirected it would be good if the Upper Clapton one was merged as well to create a single Clapton article. As mentioned before, "Upper Clapton" has never been formally demarcated so the merger makes sense. Elshad (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now redirected Upper Clapton to Clapton. Regards AlasdairDaw (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlasdairDaw Thanks! Elshad (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lower_Clapton&oldid=1207951568"