Talk:London postal district/Archive 1

Alpha order
N1, NW1, E1, SE1, SW1, EC1 and WC1 do not follow the convention of being in alphabetical order. Southwark for SE1 is correct. The ful correct list of disticts and codes is here http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/genuki/LND/postaldistricts.htm Mintguy

Inner London?
It is misleading to call the area covered by N,SE,SW,E,W & NW postcodes Inner London as Inner London is a defined term (the old LCC area) for example: In the East sector only E1, E2, E3, E6, E8 and E9 were within the LCC and are now in Inner London. MRSC 14:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lookup
I did a look up for "Greater London" on this site to get a difinitive list and the namess for the postcodes outside the London postal district but within Greater London. http://www.brainstorm.co.uk/uk_post_code_search.htm. MRSC 21:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No "S" Postal District Numbers
does anyone know if the fact that the "SE" & "SW" numbers were both divided into two alphabetical groups :- SE1-SE18 & SE19-SE27(at that time)and SW1-SW10 & SW11-SW20 signifies that it was originally intended to use the "S" postal district as well, but changed at a late stage...??? Also anyone know why NW11 Golders Green is also "out of sequence "??? IsarSteve 16:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * For a very short time there was an 'S' district as well as an 'NE'. These weren't considered viable and so merged with others respectivly. See http://www.postalheritage.org.uk/research/downloads/BPMA_Info_Sheet_Postcodes_web.pdf for more info.

N19 on map twice
N19 is on the map twice. The correct one is the inner one. I think the other one should be N9. &mdash; 81.132.5.80 04:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * well-spotted! I've seen that image many times but hadn't noticed it. I've just downloaded it, made the edit and re-uploaded it. --Vamp:Willow 10:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

W2 anomaly
Why is Paddington W2?


 * Because W2 is erroneously listed as Paddington. W2 is actually a "Head District" with a District Sorting Office (here, West). W1 is also a Head District, but is self-contained due to it´s central location and large amount of traffic. Each London Postal Area has a "Head District" with a District Sorting Office. (N1, E1, SW1, WC1, EC1, SE1, & W2).IsarSteve 00:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember W1, WC1 and WC2 all being dealt with together at Rathbone Place. MRSC 07:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This (PDF) reveals that W1, W2 and SW11 are all head districts. W is subdivided into Western (W1 only) and Paddington (W2-14). SW forms Southwestern (SW1-15) and Battersea (SW11-20). MRSC • Talk 23:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What about WC1A and WC2B etc - do they have separate facilities or not? Morwen - Talk 00:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

NE
I've managed to work out from an old map and descriptive gazetteers that the NE sector covered what is today E2,4,5,8,9,10,11,17,18 and the original E sector was what is now E1,3,6,7,12,13,14,15,16. I can't work out which areas where removed from the postal district when the sectors where merged. Anyone know? Above the Alexandra pub on Victoria Park Road there is a fine old street sign proudly showing NE if anyone is nearby with a camera, I keep forgetting to go there and take a snap. MRSC 07:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This maps reveals the full original extent of the postal district. Based on this, it looks like it was retracted at some point in every direction. MRSC • Talk 23:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Charlton and Woolwich later additions
This map if 1900 suggests the district did not originally cover Charlton and Woolwich. Anyone know anything about this? MRSC 20:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

intro
which is no longer a contiguous management area within the Post Office.

This is a bit of an odd way to start an encyclopedia article, telling us what it is not. What is meant by that line? Perhaps it belongs further down and should be better explained? MRSC • Talk 10:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Map of original district
I spotted a map of the original area of the London postal district in the maps exhibition currently at the British Library. It is described as a 12-mile circle from the main post office, and the map approximates this (but it is shown with more kinks than a raw circle, possibly conforming with parish boundaries?). this may or may not be worth checking into. Morwen - Talk 00:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested way forward for postal stubs
There have been several attempts by a range of editors to wholesale delete the large collection of postcode district stubs for London. We still have a large number of very badly written or stubby articles that get little attention from editors.

With this in mind, I have conducted a review of the postcode district article we have with a view to formulating a more pragmatic solution than group deletion. The aim is simple: to improve the encyclopedia.

The articles can all be broken down into 4 broad groups. The articles either lack significance, are very badly written, or are a one-line stub. I found only one article that came anywhere near good quality prose (London SE12). I therefore suggest the following action:

I would also suggest that we aim for GA-status for the most significant districts. I have some resources (and there is much more in the public domain) which would help to expand these articles. MRSC • Talk 14:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * After a quick look I am concerned about SE20 as it covers two separate and distinct areas. I don't have a problem redirecting  ones that cover one area, but I would object to doing that where they cover multiple areas. Regan123 14:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC) OK you've tweaked the table so I need to reword my comments.  I don't think they should redirect to a list as per the results of Articles for deletion/London N1.  So then we need to work on creating verifiable articles. Regan123 00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. As these articles in the fourth group contain only one line of text each, we can redirect, for now, until such a time that someone wants to write a full article. MRSC • Talk 05:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to that at all Regan123 10:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the whole post code thing needs clearing up and that this is a good basis for doing it. Last time around I voted for the aggregation of post codes, on the basis that they cause more confusion than they resolve, and it would be easier to write a good article for a group of codes. Many people seem to have an attachment to them out of proportion to their importance, so I accept that. Whatever happens, the following needs to be done:


 * Needs to be made clear that post codes were allocated on basis of delivery, not geography or political areas, and post codes are not the place to keep descriptions of areas.
 * Inner London: confusion, like for example N1 covering Islington and Hackney. The lack of relation with geography needs to be made clear, so parts of Hackney don't flip-flop between North and East London. (Shoreditch is blessed with 4/5 post codes, for instance). (Abolition of NE post code, soon after introduction?)
 * Outer London: retention of pre-Greater London counties until 2000, needs to be made clear, this didn't mean (for instance) that Ilford remained in Essex.
 * Post codes seem to come back to bite us (constantly), in the worst possible way. A treatment that explains the anomalies is essential, with rich linking to the political and geographic areas the post codes cover. Kbthompson 10:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The districts from groups 1-3 are now included in Category:London postcode districts. I have expanded London SE12 as a 'model' article. There are 37 other articles which now require extensive copyediting and clean up. I suggest we conduct a similar exercise some time in the future by way of a review. MRSC • Talk 17:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Several articles have been converted into redirects, contrary to the recent decision here: . I am reverting these.  Please start a DRV if you wish to overturn this AfD.


 * The previous unsigned comment was Runcorn • Talk 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read any of the articles you have reverted, or any of the above? There were several comments on that AFD that these articles should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, which is exactly what has happened here. This is an attempt to expand and improve our coverage in this area, not delete it. MRSC • Talk 06:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ALthough the quality of articles is variable, I am concerned that several articles have been changed to redirects that consisted of considerably more than one sentence.  However, I think that in many cases, all that a London postal code article needs to include is a short narrative with meaningful links to articles on the locations within the post code area, and a description of the boundaries of the postcode if these are not contiguous with other boundaries.  The result may therefore not need to be much more than "stub" length.   --Lang rabbie 21:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If all that is created is a stub, and it can never be more than a stub, the obvious course of action is to group into articles such as SE postcode area. MRSC • Talk 07:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are the stubs from category 4 which User:Runcorn has re-created: London N2, London N3, London N6, London N8, London N9, London N12, London N11, London N13, London SE20. MRSC • Talk 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just want to say I'm in broad agreement with the principle of keeping articles on postal districts to just those few that seem notable. (Probably I would want to get rid of several of the ones classed as Group 3 in the above table, but I'm not going to fret.)--A bit iffy 08:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to try to overturn an AfD.--Runcorn 12:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This would seem the most logical place to discuss the future of London postal district and associated articles. An AFD result is not an embargo on future discussion and further change. I was rather hoping (perhaps foolishly) that we could review these articles (many of which contain only one line of text) on a case-by-case basis and employ some common sense. MRSC • Talk 12:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

London N14 is now also recreated by User:Runcorn. MRSC • Talk 04:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion_policy: ''Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded can often be merged into a larger article or list. For example, information about family members of a celebrity who are not otherwise notable is generally included in, or merged into, the article on that celebrity. Stub pages about minor characters in works of fiction are generally merged into a list article. If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand.''

I've added a note above from the deletion policy in the hope this will help guide the conversation a little. We seem to be in a stalemate where stubs are being recreated for the sake of following perceived procedure, however there is no commitment to actually take these articles forward in any meaningful way. MRSC • Talk 05:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Runcorn has been blocked from editing. Now he is gone, I'm going to continue with the programme to improve these articles in the way I have outlined above. MRSC • Talk 06:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Six of the votes and most of the comments from Articles for deletion/London N1 were him or one of the sockpuppets. MRSC • Talk 07:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary! Kbthompson 08:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. In light of this I am minded to reconsider some of the stubs in group 3, as suggested by User:A bit iffy.

Also redirect: London EC1, London EC2, London EC3, London EC4, London WC2, London SE2, London SE28, London SW3, London SW5, London E4, London N4, London N5, London N15, London N16, London N17, London N19 Any suggestions for candidates for redirection? I've pulled out some of the ones I think duplicate the main articles. MRSC • Talk 08:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny how things go silent once the sock accounts are blocked. I have completed the review and extensively improved a handfull of articles which can be found here: Category:London postcode districts. MRSC • Talk 08:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Origin of district
From John Marius Wilson, Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales (1870-72):

''The General Post office stands in St. Martin's-le-Grand, near Cheapside, Newgate-street, and St. Paul's churchyard; occupies the site of an ancient college and church dedicated to St. Martin; and was built in 1825-9, after designs by Sir R.. Smirke. It measures 389 feet in length and 80 feet in width; is in the Ionic style, simple, but massive; has a hexastyle portico, copied from remains of two ancient temples; consists of granite in the basement, and of brick, faced with Portland stone, in the superstructure; and includes a central vestibule, or great hall, 80 feet long, 60 feet wide, and 53 feet high. A supplement to it, on ground in Newgate-street purchased for £3,000, was authorized by an act of 1865. The postoffice was kept, in 1635, at Sherbourne-lane; next at Dowgate; next at the Black Swan, Bishopsgate-street; next at the Black Pillars, Brydges-street, Covent-garden; next at what had been Sir Robert Viner's house, in Lombard-street; and was removed thence to the present building. ''

''Ten head-offices are now in the metropolis, as defined by a circle drawn on a radius of 12 miles from the General Post office; and they serve for ten sections in nearly the same manner as if these were ten towns, all at considerable distances from one another. The sections were marked off, and constituted, in 1856; they are all designated London, with the adjuncts of respectively E C, W C, N, N E, E, S E, S, S W, W, and N W; and they are shown in a map constructed for the purpose, but cannot be clearly delineated in words. ''

''The headoffice of the E C section is the general post office itself, with a branch in Lombard-street; of the W C section, is in High Holborn, with a branch at Charing-cross; of the N section, is in Essex-road, Islington; of the N E section, is in Church-street, Bethnal-Green; of the E section, is in Nassau-place, Commercial-road East; of the S E section, is in High-street, Southwark; of the S section, is in York-place, Lambeth; of the S W section, is in Buckingham-gate, Pimlico; of the W section, is in Vere-street; of the N W section, is in Eversholt-street, Camden-Town. Nearly 700 receiving-offices, the majority of them with money-order, savings-bank, and insurance and annuity apartments, are dispersed throughout the sections; postal-pillars and wall letter-boxes are proportiona1ly numerous; and, since 1859, no house in London has been more than ¼ of a mile distant from a moneyorder office, or more than &hy. of a mile from a receivingoffice or a postal letter-box.''

This article needs a bit of a rewrite. MRSC • Talk 08:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)