Talk:Ilford/Archive 1

Anon
I am their expert on Ilford matters. Some rogue bandits are removing my useful comments on information on Ilford. I know Ilford better than these so called experts. -- anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.163.11.108 (talk • contribs).


 * Lol...why not try adding some more stuff of what you know then? I moved to Woodford a few years back...my knowledege of Ilford is probably not that good anymore...Gammondog 22:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal
Removed distinctly unhelpul, but unintentionally amusing paragraphs from the top of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt.whitby (talk • contribs).


 * Quite right -- "Long legs and a nice rack of lamb", LOL! (PS. You can sign your comments with ). &mdash; Matt Crypto  01:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * He's been trying to insert the same crap for months now. Judging by the timestamps he does so immediately returning from a heavy night at the pub. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 01:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I personally found this quite accurate description rather amusing - and it's not very often that I am amused by anything to do with Ilford!!! It simply sums up in very basic language, that Ilford is a complete dump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouGovnr (talk • contribs) 20:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved company info
I've moved information about the photographic company to Ilford (company). Personally, I think this article should be moved to a more specific name, and the article about the company should be here as "Ilford". Ilford as a place name probably only matters to those in the UK. To many people outside the UK, "Ilford" is a photographic company. As an Australian, I only learnt about the town/district by looking up Ilford here in Wikipedia. But that's a matter for the future. For now I'm working on the Ilford (company) article. Imroy 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * moved from User talk:Imroy
 * I am very pleased to see that you've started an article on Ilford (company). However, I'd strongly oppose renaming the main Ilford article. There are hundreds of Wikipedia articles about towns and locations where the article name is just that of the town. It would be absurd to rename say Brisbane to Brisbane (town in Australia). Good luck with the article. --Runcorn 19:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes but Brisbane isn't also the name of a company known around the world, while Ilford is. As stated in Naming conventions:
 * Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.


 * I propose that most English speakers around the world would know "Ilford" as the name of the photographic company (if at all, they're not huge). But I don't really know for sure, which is why I'm bringing it up here on the talk page. I guess consideration should also be given to the number of articles each is going to be linked from. I saw that there are many articles dealing with UK towns/districts/etc linking to "Ilford" the place, while there's probably only ever going to be a handful of articles linking to "Ilford" the photographic company. So it's probably best to keep it as it is at the moment. I just wanted to throw the idea out there to see what people thought. Thanks for the feedback. Imroy 21:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as an addendum, the article is now Ilford Photo since that's what the company is called after going into receivership and being rescued with a management buy-out. So I guess that simplifies things with the name. --Imroy 16:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Error in map
The map in the template is misleading. It locates Ilford at the southern end of Ilford Lane, rather than giving the location of the station or the town hall.--Runcorn 22:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Identity section
Hi. I'm having trouble understanding the relevance to the modern town of the distinction between historic and administrative county. If you consider this relevant, I would move it to a historic administration section, rather than try to make subtle distinctions in the lead paragraph - more relevant are the modern boundaries of the district.

I must admit, also, to being wrong. It is no longer an Essex postal code, careful reading of the post office regs shows they have not used counties since 2000 - they retained the 1965 county information because they couldn't afford to change the system in London! Otherwise, it would have disappeared then, or with the next revision in 1985.

I'm also a little mystified why Ilford has such a well developed education section whereas London Borough of Redbridge does not. While not encouraging you to duplicate the information, I think putting it in the later division - would be better with a see LBR link in the Ilford text - others argue for a purely local focus and that would argue for a more focused list under Ilford.

Just a few thoughts that are better worked out with a chat than constant edit changes. Good luck. Kbthompson 15:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, just picked up. I can clarify the point as it does cause confusion.  It is one of my areas of expertise, so excuse me for turning anorak for a moment.


 * The historic counties are a separate concept from local government areas. In terms of local government, Ilford is not in Essex but in the London Borough of Redbridge, as you say.  The historic counties have their own Wikipedia page, to which I have linked any such references.


 * Essex has existed since Saxon times. Its boundaries were settled before the Norman Conquest.  Some administration was attached to the counties.  The county is a geographical area though, separate from administration; in Essex the Liberty of Havering was not subject to the justices of Essex, but it was still reckoned part of the county. In the nineteenth century more changes were made so that there were many overlapping statutory "counties".  Essex as a geographical area remained untouched.


 * Essex County Council was created in by the Local Government Act 1888. Its area was a new "administrative county".  It did not include the County Borough of West Ham, though Stratford and the other West Ham towns were considered to belong to Essex because no change was made in the ancient county.


 * The Census Office after 1888 refered to the historic counties as "the ancient or geographical counties", a very good description.)


 * The London Government Act 1963 created, from 1965, the new Greater London Area. It removed Ilford from the administrative county of Essex. Nothing in the Act suggests and abolition or alteration of the historic county though; quite the contrary. Then finally the LGS 1972 abolished, as from 1 April 1974, thwe administrative county of Essex, and created new statutory counties, of which one was called "Essex".  Specifically Section 1 of the Act abolished all "administrative counties", not the ancient counties.  The new county of Essex is a statutory county dating from 1974 only.  Ilford is not in that county.  It is however in the historic county of Essex.


 * Ordnance Survey maps now show just the local government counties. However the system is breaking down; should Southend be included in Essex when it is not in the LG county? How can we work with a geography that leaves Southend and Thurrock out of Essex, Leicester out of Leicestershire and Berkshire not existing at all?  In adding historic county information I have sought to give people an option to use a stable historic county geography if they wish.


 * It helps those doing family research too.


 * I hope this answers the point.


 * I also agree with Kbthompson. These additions are original research and have no relevance. Your arguments detailed above also contain a number of errors, the detail of which has been argued before at the talk pages of WP:PLACES and elsewhere. MRSC • Talk 15:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No; there are no errors in what I wrote. I have read the statutes at length. As a solicitor I am not in the habit of making it up. If you can point to any error, I will consider it.


 * I am aware there has been discussion of whether to describe places by their administrative area or their historic county. Whatever ones opinion of that, and it is a debate that creates ill-feeling I am not reopening it at this stage. No ruling has been made on the accuracy of assersions about the existence or abolition of the counties (not that a vote could change the position either way).


 * We are in danger of violating the principle of neutral point of view.


 * If it is just a question of "original research", I will add a citation from someone else who has published research on the same point.


 * I made additions to the Ilford and Dagenham entries to answer a common question I get asked by local people and other Londoners, and secretaries, about why they cannot find Ilford listed under Essex or why it is known as "Ilford, Essex". I have even had to answer the point in lectures I have given. Answering common queries is exactly what Wikipedia is for.  As long as it keeps a neutral point of view, the sort of addition I made is proper and useful material.
 * Hi again, I note it's back! My feeling is that the situation is best dealt with in the History section, a bald statement of the facts of administrative responsibility - referenced, of course. The way you put it is as an active debate. Ilford, Essex was abolished in 1965, it remained as a hangover for postal purposes until the introduction of post-codes, when the whole notion of counties was abolished altogether - post-codes only being concerned with delivery. I think having this paragraph is confusing to the modern reader - who has no concept of Ilford, Essex and merely perpetuates a canard. Kbthompson 13:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the citation of ABC, who are an advocacy group who wish to see county boundaries changed back to how they were in the past and a link to a discussion board. These are not suitable for WP:A. It is the aim of the project to present the facts as they have happened rather than attempt synthesis, as in this section. MRSC • Talk 13:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ilford IS part of Essex, hence the reason the address "Ilford, Essex, IG1"! And the fact that Ilford Royal Mail sorting office serves Essex! I know some people in Ilford hate living in Essex but bad luck! Unless someone gets the government to change the postal districts Ilford will always be in Essex! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spymo (talk • contribs) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake!! Some of you die-hards have got to pull your head out of the sand and accept that Ilford is NOT in Essex any longer!! Ilford is part of the London Borough of Redbridge and we have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Essex. The only tiny teeny weeny itsy bitsy thing that some people have to hang on to is the silly postcode which hasn't been changed SO FAR because postcodes are normally only changed by the sorting office. If the sorting office is moved, then the more likely it is that the postcode will be changed. It's very confusing for people who perhaps don't understand the geography of North East London, to keep suggesting that Ilford lies in Essex - it doesn't, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with not wanting it to be in Essex, just the mere technical fact that it isn't in Essex. One day, the postal code will be changed and it will finally put an end to all this confusing nonsense. For example, I just voted for the London Mayor however, my sister, who really does live in Essex, did not. Why? Because she lives in Essex and not London! —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouGovnr (talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hate living in Essex? Its a far safer and more pleasant place to live than the neighbouring London boroughs! Where do you live?? Angryafghan (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable crimes?
Do we need a separate section for one sentence?--Runcorn 07:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In an area as populous as this, I'm sure there were other notable crimes that could also go in there. MRSC • Talk 08:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Guilty as charged! This was a 'temporary' title, while the format of the history section was worked out - the sentence was already an orphan, as it didn't fit where it was. Generally, the section titles help create a framework in which other material can be developed. Perhaps, more recent history would be more appropriate? - but until it's added, it'd still only be one sentence! All the best. Kbthompson 09:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)