Talk:Metropolitan Borough of Shoreditch

Shoreditch Coat of Arms

Maybe it would be a good idea to include a picture of Shoreditch Borough's old coat of arms? There is a representation of it on one of the iron gates of Shoreditch church, as I recall...Colin4C 12:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arms image scanned and supplied, but this page looks messy - wouldn't it be a good idea to add the arms to the infobox? Lozleader 14:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, apparently coat of arms images may not be fair use, so the image may be gone in aq week. Lozleader 16:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, I found a PD version. Lozleader 09:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! By the way, the borough motto: 'More Light, More Power' refers to the provision of a cutting-edge technology Electicity Generating Station, in Hoxton Market, to provide light and heat for the residents of Shoreditch. I might add this info to the article...Colin4C 09:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely some mistake?

This new section on population seems quite odd:

Area and population

The area of the borough in 1901 was 658 acres (approximately 2.66 km²). The population recorded in the Census was: [1]

Year 1801 1811 1821 1831 1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

Population 34,766 43,930 52,966 68,564 83,432 109,257 129,364 127,164 126,591 124,009 118,668

After amalgamation, to form the modern London Borough of Hackney, the area became 19.06 km² - approximately 4,710 acres; in 2005, this authority has a population of 207,700[2]

Why are we given details of the population of the met borough (extant 1900-65) before it came into existence! And why are we then given details on how big and how populous Hackney is! This article is about the Met Borough of Shoreditch 1900-65, not the preceding parish authority of Shoreditch (which has it's own article) or Hackney borough (which also has it's own article). Colin4C 17:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the LCC calculated the statistics for the metroBoro 1801-1901 from census details for individual vestries making up the unit (therefore, they are comparable to the MetBoro). I believe the 1901 data was again collected by the vestry organisation, not the newly created boro.

The additional data for 1911-1965 is from Vision of Britain for the MBoro; and I take it, you'd have no argument with that.

The size of the modern replacement, and it's population is only given for comparison purposes (if anyone wants to add a row and work out density/sq km); you can, as you say lose it ... (well replace it with one figure).

The data is illustrative here because it shows a period of tremendous population explosion, and then abrupt contraction in the post wartime years. I was interested to see it, and was happy to reformat it.

I take your point on board, and maybe the way forward is to provide more explanation of what the data represents? Would Sam or Lozleader like to comment?

Kbthompson 00:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and I know that the Met Borough existed 1900-65, but the average user of wikipedia looking at this page is going to be seriously confused with the addition of this extraneous material. Wouldn't this data be best put in the Shoreditch article which has a longer time frame? IMHO this Met Borough article is fairly anomalous anyway (why not merge it with the Shoreditch article?) and it seems that the new data only makes it more confusing. And as far as I can see the Hackney data has no statistical relevence at all: Hackney was comprised of Shoreditch+Stoke Newington+Hackney and was a totally new entity. It would only make statistical sense if you back-dated the Hackney statistics by adding together the previous individual populations of Shoreditch+Stoke Newington+Hackney by way of comparison with the current figures. Colin4C 10:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was my opinion that only census data for 1901 -1961 would be appropriate in an article on a borough in existence 1900 - 1965. See: User talk:Sam Blacketer#Metropolitan Borough statistics. I would think the pre-1900 figures could best go on a page about the former parish (where one exists). Of course, a lot of met boroughs were amalgamations of bits and pieces, so there is logically nowhere to put this data.

However, I did not feel strongly enough to banish the data, and perhaps with appropriate introductory text, noting that the LCC compiled figures that demonstrate population growth in the precedding century, it can be included in a way that does not confuse?

I don't agree that the borough article is "fairly anomolous": I'm attempting to introduce material on the politics of all of the met boroughs, borough by borough, which would put in a bit more material not really appropriate elsewhere. Lozleader 10:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a stab at a revamp. Does that meet everybody's objections, caveats, and reservations? The 1901 figures are quoted (under 1911) in Visions of Britain, so I've not had to do any complicated referencing. If agreed, I'll apply the same format to the rest of Hackney (metro).

I do like the fact that there is a longitudinal view of the area, but I am also aware that providing 'out of range' data for an entity is anomalous. BTW: I appreciate the historical political information, most I've seen does need some more editing though ... Kbthompson 11:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I was looking at about 10 different sources at once and trying to organise the material on the hoof: I will return to them in the next couple of days, if nobody beats me to it.Lozleader 13:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to embark on an edit war with Col4, but where he's placed the image now, blatts the statistics table! I'm displaying on one half of a 24" widescreen, using Firefox ... your mileage (or population) may vary 8^) ... Kbthompson 14:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of computer are you using? An Amstrad? It looks perfectly OK on mine. Anybody else here having problems viewing the stats table? Perhaps I should write a whole new section minutely describing the allegorical significance of the sculpture on the Town Hall so we can put the picture there? (just got to find Simon Schama's phone number to get his opinion on it in terms of world art history)Colin4C 19:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks the same on the other computer, and the other, oh - just let me check - that one too .... Probably the width of the browser that causes the problem; and as a rule of thumb you should rattle it about a bit to check it works with different screen widths (just pull the browser in). As you ask, macs and pcs - but they're on different ends of a very long desk, as if they meet something very terrible will happen. Never had an Amstrad, but did have an ICL, a PDP, a DEC10 and several VAXes ... Kbthompson 23:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Ta! Kbthompson 12:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population information in error

I believe the section on population is incorrect - please refer to https://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10185506/cube/TOT_POP This appears to have 1921 and 1931 census population repeating. 2601:199:4300:180:3422:4B2B:F128:EC3D (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]