Talk:Chiswick/Archive 1

Photos
I have deleted the standard request for photos - there were none before I added some. Patche99z 17:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey great job on the photos looks alot better for it! RuSTy1989 21:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Education
Put this in as for a smallish area Chiswick has many schools. As a student of two I know abit about them. Needs spell checking (oh the irony). (RuSTy1989 19:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

Lots of change not much disscussion? RuSTy1989

I have started a page for Chiswick Community School and would apreciate some help filling in something about the place. I am a current student but my knowledge is limited. RuSTy1989 21:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Lines about Arts Ed website. Sounded abit to much like a advert that information RuSTy1989

Carluccio
Added this recently thought it was interesting peice of knowledge. RuSTy1989 28th May 2006

John Leslie
The following edit: Revision as of 02:00, 29 May 2006 by 172.212.105.114 inserted the words "devoid of virtues" after John Leslie's name. This has stood for many subsequent revisions. It clearly does not meet NPOV, so I am removing it. -- John w4 07:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A simple search into google provides the answer to that little mystery...(RuSTy1989 20:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC))

Dukes Meadows
(Apologies: I neglected to annotate my edit of 30 September 2006: explanation follows) The Dukes Meadows section was mis-placed in the introductory section, and was incomplete. I have added a little more background to the area, corrected the name (from 'Dukes Meadow') and moved it to the History section, where it now fits better (IMHO).


 * What about naming it consistently in the article? Is it "Dukes Meadows" or "Duke's Meadows"? --Malleus Fatuarum 01:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The company Dukes Meadows Trust uses no apostrophe, but OS Landranger map 176 calls the area Duke's Meadows with an apostrophe. So either would be acceptable, but if we must be consistent, I would vote for the local organisation and omit the apostrophe - less typing! Patche99z 10:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Pubs
I have removed the list of pubs and moved a couple of worthwhile bits of information from that list to the Architecture section. The rationale for this is that nearly all English towns have a number of pubs, so their presence is non-notable, and merely listing them adds nothing to understanding of Chiswick. If there is something notable about them - for example, if Chiswick has a far-above-average concentration of pubs - of course we can mention that, but we need to back it up with sources. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information.) Barnabypage 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the inclusion of Pubs into the page. It is relevant information about the area and indeed some have particular merit, such as the Tabard (William Morris) and in any event give a clearer idea as to the socio-economic make up of the area, and so, for me, I feel they should be included. There is also much other information to be included/updated - the Voysey designed Sanderson factory for instance which I will get around to.


 * What does just listing the names of pubs tell anyone about the socioeconomic makeup of the area? It's only valuable if there can be some meaningful (and supportable) discussion of the significance of pubs to Chiswick. Look forward to the Voysey update BTW, I didn't realise he'd done a factory in the area. Barnabypage 15:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the information factual or a POV? Answer is factual. Does it detract from the general information on the area or add? Answer add. I can see no reason for not including, unless you can persuade otherwise.Ceedoubleu


 * But by the same reasoning we could include a list of every petrol station in Chiswick, every off-licence, every letterbox...! While factual correctness and absence of POV are certainly necessary conditions for inclusion of material, they're surely not the sole criteria. See WP:NOT and WP:NOT. Barnabypage 17:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot agree. Pubs form a part of the social fabric of an area. They are entirely worthy of inclusion, far more so tha say an incomplete list of "celebrity residents" I believe the information should be restored and built onCeedoubleu


 * We are in agreement on the importance of pubs - it's how they're treated that is an issue. A prose section (rather than just a list) explaining any significance the pubs have - historic significance, economic importance today, etc. - would be great. (Agree with you about the celeb residents, BTW - maybe that should also be trimmed down to just a few examples?) Barnabypage 17:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not worth contributing as one contributor treats this page as his personal property.


 * I don't see anyone doing that, and it's always worth contributing. Barnabypage 02:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Voysey House - The Sanderson Factory
I have provided brief details on the Sanderson House and will provide some photographs as soon as possible, but if anybody has images available, please post Ceedoubleu

Grammar edits are not particularly helpful, but if anybody has some facts to add they are welcome. Actually, on reflection, I am surprised that somebody would consider the phrase "architectural merit" a POV applied against a Grade 2* building. Perhaps an explanation would be useful.


 * The deleted phrase was not just "architectural merit", but "An often overlooked building with great architectural merit". Both the "often overlooked" and the "great", while unsourced, smack of POV. I agree that "architectural merit" on its own is not contentious given the building's listing, but that speaks for itself - and after all, we wouldn't be including it in this section if it wasn't of architectural merit or interest. Barnabypage 14:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You were not aware of the building. The fact is, given its location, is that is is "often overlooked". Ceedoubleu


 * What is it about its location that makes it often overlooked? Genuine question - if we can say "Less well-known because it is concealed behind a multistorey carpark" (or whatever), while it might technically fall foul of NOR, I think that would be fine. It's just that "often overlooked" without an explanation smacks a bit of special pleading, of trying to present something that is deservedly ignored as worthy of note. Don't get me wrong - I don't think that's what you're doing - I'm just concerned about the way it may appear to readers. Barnabypage 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, there's a quite nice photo here - http://www.london-footprints.co.uk/Photos/voysey.jpg. I don't know if you were planning to take one, but if not, shall I write to them and ask if we can use it? Barnabypage 19:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Its often overlooked because it is surrounded by larger non descript buildingsCeedoubleu


 * Thanks - I've made an edit which I hope removes the potential ambiguity of "overlooked". Barnabypage 13:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Celebs
As mentioned earlier (under Pubs), the celebrities list may be getting out of hand and may not illuminate any point about Chiswick in particular - you could probably assemble a similar list for any well-off London district. I suggest we reduce it to a small handful of those who are truly household names. Any objections? Barnabypage 13:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the list is too long. But then I don't pay much attention to current celebs, so I don't recognise all the names. One missed is mentioned by Gillian Clegg in "Chiswick Past", page 38: "Field Marshall Montgomery lived in Grove Park as a child; married in St Nicholas church, and was made a Freeman of the borough of Brentford and Chiswick in 1945." Hogarth and Montgomery seem to be the most notable former residents, but that is a personal point of view. And that raises the question of what criteria to use in compiling a list like this. To my mind, it necessarily has some personal judgement in it. Patche99z 15:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest that the list should be removed altogether? An alternative could be to create a category 'Residents of Chiswick' and tag biography articles as appropriate.  Lists such as these are inevitably subjective: what constitutes a celebrity?  what about people who were famous in their day but less well known now?  household names in whose household? e.g. I see that Jack Beresford, one of the most successful competitors at the Olympic Games in any sport from any country - 3 Golds and 2 Silvers in rowing at successive Games from 1920-36 has been removed.  Having arranged the unveiling ceremony for an English Heritage Blue Plaque on his former home in Grove Park Gardens two years ago, I'd disagree with his omission but equally I recognise that many have never heard of him.  Best to lose the list entirely, I think.  James of Putney 17:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The recent edit of the notable people list does seem rather strange. It also seems to have focused on contemporary people rather than the truely notable and has some odd omissions and inclusions - three multiple Olympic Gold medalists are omitted (Daly Thompson, James Cracknell and the aforementioned Jack Beresford) but an ex-sports presenter is included (Des Lynam), Sir Peter Blake and Sir Trevor Nunn are removed but Dennis Waterman and Davina MacCall remain.


 * I suggest that a properly formatted list be included nearer the bottom of the article with a sentence against each one giving their reason for notability - see Wimbledon article for an example. --DavidCane 23:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How strange that Sir Peter Blake, an eminent artist who created the cover for Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club by the Beatles was removed as was Richard Briers, a very well known actor. I suggest they should be reinstated Ceedoubleu 11:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that degrees of celebrity are inevitably subjective. As an alternative to James of Putney's proposition that we lose the list altogether, how about we apply some stricter criteria: individuals who are BOTH (a) notable beyond Chiswick (in practice, the existence of a Wikipedia article is a good marker of this) AND (b) notable within Chiswick itself, apart from just living or having lived there - e.g. within Chiswick they held a significant local office, built a notable building, established a major company, etc. This at least assures that their connection with the place is more than loose. Barnabypage 11:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edit has got a useful discussion going, which is great. I can't agree with your second criterion, "notable within Chiswick itself" - that will leave very few people, and will miss out some interesting ones. It is worth looking at the list at Wimbledon, London, not only for its layout, but for its contents. James Hunt, for example, was an interesting character, but not in the local context. So why is he interesting - or is he interesting only to a few folk, like me, who are into F1? And why am I interested to know he lived in Wimbledon, anyway - is it just for something to talk about in the pub, or might I (or someone) need it for a more substantial reason? I can't think of a general rule for selection, more than your criterion a), so it remains subjective. I suspect that my dislike of the original list was mostly due to the lack of explanation for each name, and if the list can be formatted as the Wimbledon one, then it could be expanded considerably. Another point - should the list be limited to celebs from a certain date, say 20th and 21 century? Apologies if this is a bit rambling. Patche99z 15:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So, Sir Peter Blake, an eminent artist and a member of the Royal Academy - does anybody object to his reinstatement? Ceedoubleu 20:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be against his reinstatement, specifically. In essence, I just feel that the celebs list in this article (and indeed many others) is falling foul of WP:NOT. Barnabypage 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * More Peter Blake information and link included. I do feel he merits more prominence rather than being part of a list of "celebs". THoughts? Ceedoubleu 19:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well...given the article is about Chiswick I don't think it's the place to put general material about him, which belongs on his own page, BUT if there is anything he has done that specifically relates to Chiswick, e.g. paintings based on the area, we could certainly discuss it. He probably wouldn't merit a section on his own but maybe we could have a section headed "Artistic activity in Chiswick" or somesuch if there's sufficient material to justify it. Barnabypage 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition to the Blue Plaque for Jack Bereseford mentioned earlier, the English Hertitage Blue Plaque site lists a number of other Blue Plaques for residents of Chiswick/W4:
 * E. M. Forster, writer, at Arlington Park Mansions, Sutton Lane, Turnham Green, W4 (although this may be better placed under the Turnham Green article if it is ever expanded from the current stub)
 * Joseph Michael Gandy, artist at 58 Grove Park Terrace, London, W4
 * Frederick Hitch, VC recipient, at 62 Cranbrook Road, Chiswick, W4
 * John Lindley, botanist, at Bedford House, The Avenue, W4
 * Lucien Pissarro, painter, at 27 Stamford Brook Road, Chiswick, W6
 * Alexander Pope, poet, at Mawson Arms PH (formerly Mawson's Buildings), 110 Chiswick Lane South, Chiswick, W4
 * Johann Zoffany, painter, at 65 Strand-on-the-Green, Chiswick, W4
 * None of these are listed at the moment, but as they were considered notable enough to achieve a Blue Plaque, they should probably be in the list. For some reason, William Hogarth does not seem to have a blue plaque anywhere. --DavidCane 09:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

DavidCane has made the comments I had in mind about the blue plaques. I would add that I am a bit surprised that Wiki is apparently duplicating the English Heritage list for London, and has done so little so far. Re Barnabypage's last comment, I have just followed his link and found Notability (people) which defines who is notable. It occurs to me that the basic decision on whether to include a person in Wikipedia relates to including (or not) an article about that person. Then, a mention here under Chiswick's celebs is simply a useful cross reference to that article. So we could include any person who has an article in Wikipedia, but no-one else. I would still like a few words to identify the person's claim to fame, as per Wimbledon. Does that make any sense? Patche99z 14:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi I have deleted the Blue Plaque reference for Anthony Webb, Media Lawyer as I cannot find any source for this. If somebody can, please reinstate. Ceedoubleu 13:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have put a question to the editor who inserted the warning notice about lack of references in this section - see User talk:Kierant - suggesting he remove the notice. Patche99z 11:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi all. I've tried to address Patche99z's points (where they were put, to keep the conversation together: see talk page linked above). – Kieran T  (' talk ') 00:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Useful - my later comments are on Kierant's page too. Patche99z 13:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope an acceptable approach is now agreed. I have made a start on the slightly rearranged listing - see User talk:Kierant again - by adding in the blue plaques, but do not want to start on the rest because I may be duplicating someone else's work. Is anyone listing the names out with a line each and a word or two of explanation? Patche99z 16:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent work. Just one suggestion on the blue plaques section - I wonder if we should omit the dates after each name? Birth and death dates will (presumably) be provided by the linked articles anyway (and anybody notable enough to deserve a blue plaque is likely to have a Wiki article too), and I wonder if some users might think the dates referred to periods of residence in Chiswick. Barnabypage 16:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it looks better now, with the various Wikification sorted (I am still a beginner in the detailed stuff.) And I agree about the dates, so have removed them. Are you working on the rest of the list? Patche99z 13:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not as yet, but I can... Barnabypage 14:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! Patche99z 15:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nearest places
This list has been gradually including more remote places, while deleting closer ones. Acton and Brentford both disappeared, while Kensington, Notting Hill (why not Shepherd's Bush, which is closer and in the same direction?) and now Chelsea were added. I think we need some factual criterion for inclusion, and in amending the list, I have assumed adjoining Chiswick to be it. What do other people think? Patche99z 15:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have been corrected, but Shepherds Bush is still missingCeedoubleu 12:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry to miss that. Another thing - I have in mind to separate out Gunnersbury with an introductory line such as "Local areas within Chiswick postal area, and with separate Wiki entries", and add in Bedford Park with Gunnersbury. But my Ordnance Survey street atlas shows Bedford Park as being partly in the W12 - Shepherd's Bush - area, so it may not be accurate to say it is all within Chiswick. I had thought that Bedford Park was all in W4, i.e. west from Abinger Road - what do others think? Patche99z 15:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. All of Bedford Park is in W4. Abinger Road is the western boundary. Ceedoubleu 16:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you - I have made the amendment as I suggested. Patche99z 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nearest places is defined in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London. Adding in places such as Fulham, which is not actually adjoining Chiswick, and removing Acton etc., which are, is not helpful. Patche99z 15:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I try to limit these to no more than four as a guide. MRSC • Talk 19:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have say 5 adjoining places, and list only 4, you are using some form of judgement in making your choice. It is better, I think, to include all adjoining places. Patche99z 11:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nearest places seems to be a source of disagreement. Chiswick borders Hammersmith, Shepherds Bush, Acton, Brentford, Mortlake via a bridge, Barnes likewise.

Edited again. Chiswick borders Shepherds Bush, it does not border Fulham Ceedoubleu 10:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And I am afraid I do not agree with removing the 'local areas within Chiswick' line - why did you do that? Patche99z 11:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again... There has been quite a bit of discussion here on this, and I thought it was agreed that we would use the criterion of "adjoining Chiswick" in listing nearest places. So:
 * Brentford is adjoining at the Strand-on-the-Green end of Chiswick, and was once part of the same urban district for that reason.
 * Kew adjoins Chiswick, being on the south of the river opposite Strand-on-the-Green
 * Mortlake adjoins Chiswick, being on the south of the river between Chiswick Bridge and Barnes Bridge. This is clearly marked on the Ordance Survey street atlas of London.
 * Fulham does not adjoin Chiswick (although it is not far away) - it adjoins Hammersmith.

So could user 82.69.22.202 please check a map, and read the discussion - I do not want to start an editing war, either, especially so trivial a matter. Patche99z 15:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted. It is not a difficult or complex case. If, as you suggest, the unknown editor would take the time to study a map, all would be clear Ceedoubleu 20:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

History
I'd like to expand on the history, a couple of items spring to mind: The Battle of Turnham Green (English Civil War) and industries such as the Vosper Thornycroft shipyard and the Cherry Blossom shoe polish factory. I'll try to make a start over the weekend, but if anybody wants to pre-empt this please do so. Ceedoubleu 18:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You might like to check Battle of Turnham Green and its discussion page. I am having a problem with what exactly happened at the battle. Patche99z 11:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ealing
Any sources for Ealing having part of Chiswick within it? W4 extends into Ealing, but it is only a postal designation. Looking at the former Chiswick parish, no part of it is over the border in Ealing (in fact some territory was transferred the other way). MRSC • Talk 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It does, much of Chiswick that is north of South Parade and west of The Avenue is administered by Ealing. I am surprised that you edit without knowing that. Ceedoubleu 21:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That area, although part of W4 appears to be Bedford Park. MRSC • Talk 21:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of it is Bedford Park, which is in Chiswick. Chiswick is unified by the W4 postcode but split between two local authorities, Ealing and Hounslow.Ceedoubleu 09:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that Bedford Park is a local area within Chiswick, along with Gunnersbury, Grove Park and Strand-on-the-Green. See the first para under History in the article. Patche99z 11:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * An example of any number of sources is The page on the LB Ealing site of one of the Councillors who describes his address (which falls within the Southfield ward of LB Ealing) as "Chiswick". If a local Councillor representing the area believes he lives in Chiswick, its a good indication that the area is generally regarded as such. Postal districts don't always represent communities in the UK, but in this case W4 and Chiswick are pretty much co-terminus. --Liberaljon 05:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I always though the Southfield ward was in Acton and people (including Councillors) often preferred to class it as Chiswick firstly because it is in W4 and secondly because it is a more affluent area than many other parts of Acton so residents like to describe it as being in the more 'renowned' town of Chiswick. A quick look at the ward boundaries on the LB Ealing site shows that Southfield stretches up to Acton High Street at the north. I don't see how this can be classed as Chiswick. The southern end may be more debatable but I'd still consider it Acton.155.198.224.50 14:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Gallery section
I created a Gallery section to hold the images that were overwhelming the History section. They're pretty pictures, but I can't see what they're saying about Chiswick. If they're illustrating something relevant then they ought to be integrated into the article more judiciously: if they're not, then they ought to be deleted. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I am glad that you are taking the trouble to improve the appearance of the article, but I am afraid I do not agree about the relevance of the pics. So I have improved the captions to explain things more. The bridge in the Chiswick House grounds is but one of several historic structures in the grounds, and was designed by the same chap who designed the later wings to the house. The blossom in Staveley Road is an important local feature. And the pubs caused some discussion - see above - and needed illustrating. I have moved the pics back to where they are relevant, more or less.
 * FYI, the pics were originally roughly where they needed to be, but a previous editor Wikified the layout, moving all to the right, and losing their direct relevance. The result was a boring column you did not know was there until you scrolled down the page, and I am not surprised you wished to improve this. I am not happy now with the appearance, but the details of good web page layout, combined with the Wiki formats, defeat me. What I see on my wide-format screen, using Firefox and normal text size, may not look the same on your screen. Patche99z 16:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I still don't see what relevance a picture of blossom has in a section supposedly about "Architecture and development". But that apart, I'm probably no more happy about where the pictures are now than you are. Wouldn't it perhaps be more aesthetically pleasing to stagger them? --Malleus Fatuarum 16:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Economy section
I think this article is badly in need of an Economy section. Are there any significant employers in Chiswick, or is it a residential and leisure suburb? What about demographics? Who lives in Chiswick? --Malleus Fatuarum 01:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

For instance, the lead says "Chiswick is home to the Griffin Brewery, where Fuller, Smith & Turner brew their prize-winning ales", but the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. Where in the article is Fuller, Smith & Turner mentioned? --Malleus Fatuarum 01:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added a sentence on Fullers brewery, which is certainly a local institution. It stayed true to real ale all through the Watney's Red Door years. But I am puzzled by your comment that an economy section is badly needed for "this article". Why this article in particular? Most local area articles do not have such a section. What have you noticed about Chiswick that is so in need of explanation? Also, it would be a complex task to write a useful and full economy section, because Chiswick's economy is inextricably linked to those of London and LB Hounslow - Hounslow spends a lot of money here, for example, and I am sure that many locals do not work locally. In these respects, Chiswick is not exceptional. I suggest this suggestion is not worth taking up. Patche99z 11:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that this article is in any way special in needing an economy section, many others do as well. You ought surely to be aiming for the standard of the best local area articles, not the majority, as judged by GA/FA reviewers. Are you familiar with the guidance contained in WP:UKCITIES? --Malleus Fatuarum 17:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you - I had not come upon this article before. And I now see why the word governance is used. Your additions are worthwhile. Patche99z 13:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A further thought: the word economy is probably the wrong choice for the proposed section contents. The Shorter Oxford defines economy in several ways, the most relevant being "the management or administration of the resources (frequently financial resources) of a community..." So I would expect expenditure to be included. But the intention of the guidance articles seems to be to focus on local businesses and employment. So why not give the section a more limited name, such as "Businesses and employment"? Or, if the writer wants to omit such obvious employers as NHS, schools, shops, etc., just "Businesses"? I can see that some areas should have one of these sections, whatever it is called, where there is a particular local bias (tourism, major airport, important industry) but a normal suburb is not so special in this regard. Anyway, enough good folk are already involved in these discussions on the page you referenced, so I will shut up for now. Patche99z 14:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of most of references to Ealing in Chiswick
The recent removal of population figures and other references to Ealing's Southfield ward seems to me to have resulted in confusion.
 * 1) The reduction in population from 41,000 in 1951 to 31,000 in 2001 is unexplained. By including the Ealing figures, now removed, some effort was made at explaining this; the boundaries were different.
 * 2) The new editing seems to present a single person's view of what is meant by the name "Chiswick", and that excludes some of the W4 postal district area. This is certainly contentious. The postal district "Chiswick W4" is taken by some to mean the Chiswick area. For example, Gillian Clegg's book accepts the W4 definition. If there is some dispute about the area properly so named, okay, but the different definitions should be explained, not glossed over.
 * 3) The earlier discussion under Ealing above seemed to result in most contributors agreeing that Bedford Park is a part of Chiswick, and so is most of Southfield ward in Ealing.
 * 4) I cannot find a firm ruling on how, in general, area names are allocated - it seems to be that definitions overlap. For example, I have seen very different numbers for populations of various cities, depending on where the boundaries were drawn. Parishes, wards and postal districts are each defined, but overlap, and the matter is further confused by the tendency, mentioned in Ealing above, to adopt an area name for adjacent areas if that is advantageous for reasons of prestige or property sales.
 * 5) It seems to me that the postal district definition of Chiswick is the simplest and least confusing, and I would recommend that this is borne in mind in future editing, which is certainly now needed. Patche99z (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We agree insofar as the article should not reflect "views", but what the evidence is telling us. Chiswick was a parish that became Chiswick Urban District and was eventually amalgamated into the London Borough of Hounslow. In 1917 the postal district "W4" was assigned to the area of delivery of the Chiswick post office. In common with the rest of London, this does not mean that at all places in W4 are in Chiswick. Additionally, electoral wards do not individually or collectively define a locality. They are constructed to provide a even distribution of electors. Perhaps this is why Chiswick parish has a lower population than the three wards. There is no evidence to suggest there has been a transfer from Hounslow to Ealing (or their predeccesors) so it is not because of that. It is more likely because the population of Greater London has been in decline since 1945. MRSC • Talk 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A small point first - the parish population is more than that of the three wards some years later, not less - so are the wards smaller? I could not find an acreage for the wards on the Hounslow web site, and have yet to measure it on a map. Another thought is that the earlier population figures somehow included parts of what is now Brentford - I had not found the references you cite, which make that unlikely, but I am still not clear on the areas relating to the population figures.


 * My main concern is that the definition of the area attached to a name is not a formal one, and therefore it seems to me that we should take a consensus of actual usage. And actual usage says that part of the Ealing Southfields ward is indeed within Chiswick. Hence I still consider that Ealing should be given more prominence. Patche99z (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Patche99zz - You are quite right. The article has been rendered utterly inaccurate. Perhaps somebody may find the will to correct it. Ceedoubleu (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate
Regretfully this article has become hopelessly inaccurate as a result of clumsy editing. The population figures are simply ridiculously out of date, as is the geographical area. Ceedoubleu (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the Museum of London: http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/postcodes/places/W4.html confirms that part of Chiswick is in the Borough of Ealing. Perhaps somebody will have the energy to take on those that deny this?. Ceedoubleu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC).

IBM
Chiswick was home to two IBM buildings when I lived there in the 1980s. The one mentioned over Gunnersbury station, and a second building on the High Road (just along from The Old Packhorse? pub) and shown in the background here: - the black glass tower block at the right of the picture. At some time the building appears to have been given a makeover as it looks substantially different from how I remember it.

Writing of computer companies there was also Honeywell Bull on the Great West Road just outside Chiswick and another, Wang, had offices roughly opposite to HB, but they may have been classed as Brentford, as I seem to remember them both being near a small church that was awkward to get to due to the crossroad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Good article criteria
Chiswick was list was listed in 2015 Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria (see top of page). Looking at it now, some of the images fail GA criteria, mentioned in How to write about settlements:


 * Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images. (GA criteria)
 * Images need succinct captions. (GA criteria)

There are also images that are in the articles they link to: Memorial to Richard Tayler, Portrait of the poet Ugo Foscolo, Peter Brooke, The spire of St Michael and All Angels. Removing these will help getting the images on the right avoiding MOS:SANDWICH.

likewise those needing succinct captions and a good caption explains why a picture belongs in an article MOS:CAP
 * Oldest part of Chiswick: - most of this text belongs in the article.
 * Memorial to Richard... - Most of the text should be in the picture's main article.

There is more, but hopefully you see my point.

Finally I don't see any need for Entomologists in Gunnersbury Triangle, it does not add anything to the article on Chiswick. If the article is cleaned up it shouldn't need WP:GAR. Sciencefish (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Very speedy! Sciencefish (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)