Talk:Crayford

TV Star?
I am removing contribution by 89.167.173.179 "Child Tv star and model Anthony Forgham grew up in crayford and was set for a life of fame and stardom before he was Questioned for the murder of a classmate on a school trip in the mid 90s." Many people grew up in Crayford. Anthony Forgham does not appear elsewhere in the Web and seems to be unimportant. Apuldram (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crayford. 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 tag to http://www.bexley.gov.uk/localstudies/local_history/guide_pdfs/22_crayford.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.bexley.gov.uk/localstudies/local_history/guide_pdfs/12_may_place_crayford.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.bexley.gov.uk/localstudies/local_history/guide_pdfs/76_two_local_inventors.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609042913/http://www.bexley.gov.uk/service/towns/crayford/thingstodo.html to http://www.bexley.gov.uk/service/towns/crayford/thingstodo.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

London / Greater London
According to Wikiproject London Guidelines nowhere should be described as “Greater” only “London”. People have recently been making a mockery of the Wikiproject and I for one shall not stand for it. I just wanted to make that clear here.Justgravy (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the same comment at Talk:Bexleyheath - this is not in the Wikiproject London Guidelines, which only say in WP:LONDONNAMES to avoid using "Greater" in list-article titles. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Lord Belbury (and others) are making a mockery of Wikiproject London as a whole. I will not stand for this and would die to defend it. They are demonstrating that Wikipedia is institutionally biased...Justgravy (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * JG, the guidelines state:


 * "London" is used in preference to "Greater London", except where it is specifically the local government area, less the City of London:
 * e.g. List of wards in Greater London and Category:Councillors in Greater London
 * "Greater London" is used for List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater London because that is the nomenclature :::used ("areas of search")


 * If you want to focus your energies on something more productive, why not question the original research that has lead to the assumption above that London is the same area as Greater London (plus the square mile)? Read it twice, or even thrice, because, yes, it is a bit confusing - that's often what happens when you use personal opinion to make a statement of fact. Does this mean, for example, that Crayford, London, should refer to Crayford, Greater London, because Greater London is refering specifically to the local govt area created by the London Government Act 1963? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with what you are saying is that you do not want to refer to places like Lewisham or Kensington as Greater London. However, this is also referring to the local government area.Justgravy (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * the guidelines you're quoting apply only to the article names of list articles about London (ie. those in Category:London-related_lists), which I would assume to be more about WP:CONCISION than anything else, when article title space is at a premium. Justgravy is wrong to suggest that these guidelines also answer the question of whether or not to use the word "Greater" in the text of any given article. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * So you are saying Roger has been misinterpreting things as well? I thought you and Roger were on the same side?Justgravy (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm mentioning something Roger may have overlooked, although reading it again perhaps he was only using it as an example. This is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, we're all here to make Wikipedia better. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "We're all here to make Wikipedia better" - exactly, truth reigns supreme. But it is funny you mention battleground, because I feel that Roger has been uncooperative and insulting at times.Justgravy (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, getting back to my point, here it does state that "For locations within Greater London, placename, London should be used." Also, at the very top of this page it does say "This page describes conventions for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places, AND for the use of place names in Wikipedia articles." It seems clear to me, I honestly fail to see what I am missing here?Justgravy (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing that a "place name" isn't the same as a sentence or paragraph that describes where that place is. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It is if that description includes a "place name".Justgravy (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That's more for situations like the Derry/Londonderry name dispute where Wikipedia needs to make a consistent call on what name to use for a place, outside of the place's article itself. Guidance that For locations within Greater London, placename, London should be used. doesn't tell us anything about how to best write a sentence like "Crayford is a town and electoral ward located in [Greater/Southeast] London". --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The guideline explicitly states to not mention the “Greater” for areas within (Greater) London, it's literally written right there in the guideline. Therefore, I would argue that to then immediately describe X as "an area of Greater London” would be in violation of this guideline.Justgravy (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing it. If you think you've found a magic bullet to address the recent no-consensus WikiProject London RfC about this, you should mention it there. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

JG, have you considered that what you are referring to is merely a point of ambiguity with Project guidelines that should be clarified? Therefore, it is not a consensus point of best practice that is being ignored. The intent of the guidelines does appear to be as LB describes it, not as you are describing it. Personally, I return to my repeated request that common sense and common usage should first be considered, something I think you are failing to do. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It’s pretty obvious though. Otherwise it would say “For locations within Greater London, placename, Greater London should be used.” However, it doesn’t and so meaning can be drawn from this. I do not think of it as a “magic bullet” at all. This is more to do with not accepting and/or going against guidelines. Otherwise, what is the point in even having guidelines? All editors would have to do to go against them would be to get a few other editors to agree with them and then argue consensus. Also, I can’t edit that conversation anymore, it explicitly says “The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.”Justgravy (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * A magic bullet is "a simple remedy for a difficult or complex problem". You're acting as if there's no need to establish a new consensus about London locations because you've found a line in a guideline that says to write place names as "Placename, London" instead of "Placename, Greater London" and you think that solves it. The RfC has closed but you started a thread to continue the discussion, that's the conversation I was referring to. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Trust me, I have analysed this from all angles. However, it just doesn’t seem ambiguous. As I said, it explicitly mentions places in “Greater” and then removes it. What is the point in even having guidelines if editors just try to find excuses to ignore them…Justgravy (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You have ignored my point above and are fixed on "it is written down therefore it must be right and must, without question, be followed." But, in reply to what you have asked, any guidelines anywhere and for whatever purpose only work if people accept them. People will not accept them if they are wrong, draconian, ambiguous, or undesirable in any other way. The solution is either to fix them or if they are so wrong they cannot be fixed, to start again. Look at the road code for example. Even if all the road marking disappeared and all traffic lights disappeared, people would still follow the basic rules (drive on the left, indicate when turning, etc.) Why? Because they are guideline that work and people therefore accept them. (Being legally how people should drive just reinforces the common sense guidelines). If the guidelines are wrong they will not be followed: blame the guidelines, not the people who don't follow them. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Guidelines are written to be followed, otherwise what purpose do they serve? The fact that something is a concrete guideline on Wikipedia means that it has been planned, written out and accepted, otherwise it wouldn’t exist. Just because certain individuals do not agree, does not mean it cannot be followed. You mentioned the law before and this is a good example. After something becomes law, every single citizen does not write consent form to say they agree, lots of people might disagree and think it’s stupid as well. However, if you break it and are caught you are punished. Not knowing and/or not agreeing will not fly with the Police when you are arrested and also will not fly with the prosecution when you later appear in court. Justgravy (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)