Talk:West Ham

Merge
Hello – would like to propose merging the following articles as they cover the same geographic area -	County Borough of West Ham -	West Ham Merging the two would form a good foundation for others to develop and refine the articles – having the choice arguably deters this. Something similar could be done for many of the County Borough\Metropolitan borough areas in London as they are often based on coterminous ancient parishes. In terms of content I would just seek to merge the shorter ‘West Ham’ article into the fuller County Borough article without removing any information apart form duplication. What do people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlasdairDaw (talk • contribs) 17:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed the above in October and had no objections. So will proceed, I don't believe my draft cuts hardly anything except repetition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlasdairDaw (talk • contribs) 10:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Damage caused by WW2

Additionally a merger proposal - identical to that above (also Oct 16) was included, no responses so I proceeded.
 * Post-1945 development, especially housing

Unmerge
This page should never have been merged with County Borough of West Ham. The parish county/borough was a much larger area than the locality of West Ham (which still exists). MRSC (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Case for re-merging
Hi MRSC,

I think I had a good case for merging the ‘County Borough’ and plain ‘West Ham’ articles. I think it ties into a wider and very interesting question about what exactly place names refer to in London and England. There is a perception that they apply to focal settlements (villages, towns etc) when that is often not the case.

I don’t want to drone on, well not unless you do too. By which I mean I’d love to drone on.

Please excuse the extensive tangents, beer has been taken.

Throughout England we have a fascinating historic division between ‘planned countryside’ and ‘ancient countryside’. The London area falls into the latter category, Oliver Rackham describes this very well in ‘History of the Countryside’ and other works.

•	The former consists of areas formerly under the ‘common arable’, strip farming, little woodland, concentrated agricultural settlements (ie vilages) and all that.

•	The latter consists of a more wooded environment, old hedged fields, dispersed settlement – ie no villages, at least not until relatively recent period. This include London and the counties round it.

The outcome of this is that place names in the SE often apply not to expanded settlements but rather to extensive and long established rural and subsequently urban districts(parishes and their successors).

In the ‘Planned Countryside’ (eg Midlands) it is probably fair to say that place names refer to the villages that exist there. However, around London, the more established names typically refer to these larger parshes\districts than any settlements within them (centrally approved towns and cities a particular exception).

Whilst recognising that place names\areas, especially in London, are highly nuanced, I do think it’s sound to say that the definition of West Ham is the area covered by the Ancient Parish and subsequently the County Borough. Initially a large rural parish with a hamlet here and there, and subsequently a large urban district. It was a continuous admin unit from the 1100s to 1965, and the western part of ‘Ham’ for a considerable period prior.

You could say the same about many areas of London, the name applies to an extensive area rather than a locality focussed on a train station, shopping street etc.

The district has lost its prestige\meaning in the settlement hierarchy since merging into Newham, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that it’s changed its definition. It is still a ‘thing’, as they say; and still west Newham rather than a narrow locality.

You also changed my edit on Stratford, which described it as part of West Ham. You described them as distinct localities. I mention this to illustrate my point that they’re not mutually exclusive. Stratford is part of West Ham, as is Plaistow etc. There is a locality you could describe as ‘Central West Ham’ on an axis from the station to the parish church - though this is a backwater really and never a real focus. You couldn’t, IMO, make a case for making this area the definition of ‘West Ham’.

So for now - before your response, my case is that WH is the district covered by the parish\borough rather than a narrow locality around the train station. That’s why I thought it a good move to merge the articles.

In the context of one place this wouldn’t be that interesting a point, but it’s worth fuller consideration as a similar discussion could be had regarding many areas of London and elsewhere.

I don’t know if\when you’ll see this. Not sure how watch alerts are triggered – (I proposed merging these a couple of months before doing so you see) – so if I don’t hear back I’ll revert your edit on Stratford (with appropriate notes) in the hope of catching your attention.

Hope this doesn’t all come across as ‘smartarse’. Tried to word this in a way to prompt discussion rather than to get the final word

Best wishes…

Suggested way forward
I can restore some of the old content while still keeping the articles de-merged and separate. The article would then describe the central locality and wider district, while referring to the separate CB article where appropriate. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlasdairDaw (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes to adding content where appropriate. No to your thesis on historical places names being current. The encyclopedia should reflect facts. So you can say "Canning Town was in the ancient parish of West Ham". You cannot say "Canning Town is in West Ham". MRSC (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)