Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:59, 2 April 2019

London C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mid to...

Starting in the mid to late 1980s(90's not 80s) there Which one is it? And please keep disagreements of the accuracy of the article to the discussion page or fix them completely with a note here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristosIET (talk • contribs) 11:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Green v Rise

The names Kensal Green and Kensal Rise are used interchangeably to denote the same neighbourhood

Kensal green and kensal rise are interchangeable names, they are not different areas. People just believe they are different areas due to the postcodes (nw10 and nw6)

It bothers me that in several places Kensal Rise or Green are just referred to as Kensal. I lived in Kensal Rise for 15 years and it was never referred to as just Kensal. I suppose the obvious thing would be to replace Kensal with Kensal Green/Rise. It's hard as they are separate places but like so many places in London they blend into each other without a clear demarkation. Any thoughts? Twoquidtunes

Is there more than one Kensal Green, that this needs this level of disambiguation? -- Zoe

Heheh. I think it is VERY unlikely that it "needs this level of disambiguation"! I tried looking for non-W10 Kensal Greens, ones not in London, ones without cemeteries etc, without a huge amount of success. I think the name used is a reflection of someone trying sincerely to apply sensible heirarchical policies to place names whilst slightly forgetting the point of it. Personally I cannot be bothered to change it and then to go around changing the links (though I have done this once or twice in other cases where they just bugged me too much) but I would sympathize with anyone who did want to! It would imho have been better to just start off with Kensal Green (on the "most obvious name" rule) and then wait for the need for disambiguation to develop if it did when Kensal Green, North Dakota comes out of the woodwork! Nevilley 23:48 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

Two votes + mine ... good enough for me. Moved :-) -- Tarquin 23:49 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

Well done! Nevilley 23:52 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

Croydon

The places near Purley and Coulsdon are Croydon, Redhill, Reigate, Epsom, Bromley, Sutton, Wallington and a number of Croydon surburbs. Of course, compared with the North of England or Scotland all places in and around London are near, but that's like saying places in the extreme south of Greater New York are close to the extreme north of the city. Does that sound right? Sorry, that was me--Dieter Simon 01:44 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

A lot of the London stuff was I think done in some semi-automated way and whilst most of the results are not bad, there are some completely bonkers things it produced too. I think Purley and Coulsdon feature(d) in quite a few entries from *miles* away! No case needs to be made - it's not someone with faulty geographical knowledge or an odd concept of London, but just a mistake, so correct away! :) Nevilley 08:20 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Nevilley's guess about what happened is correct: I produced the automated "skeleton" entries for London, using a number of different geographic datasets with different geographic datum references, data formats, and naming conventions. Most of the errors were fixed by scripts which cross-referenced entries with normalized names and pseudo-WGS84-projected coordinates to spot the outliers. This was followed by hand checking of a small sample to test the quality of the checking algorithms. Unfortunately, a little bit of south London went into hyperspace in the process, and I didn't catch it in time.

The automated creation of a "skeleton" mesh of articles also explains the highly disambiguated names: I didn't want the skeleton-posting script to create false aliases for other places with similar names. The Anome 08:28 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Many thanks for your clarifications. On the whole the project is a good idea.--Dieter Simon 10:14 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Not the first cemetery?

I was under the impression that Kensal Green's was the first cemetery in the country; was there an earlier? If not, then the point about it's still being in use needs to be rewritten to avoid ambiguity. Oh, and would anyone mind if I added a quotation from the Chesterton poem? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20030603171741/http://www.brent-heritage.co.uk/kensal_green.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. SFB 18:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Information

It would appear that this edit in 2006 wholesale copied information which appeared on the Brent Heritage website. I have removed the offending text as this is a copyright violation. SFB 18:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Location of propose crossrail station?

The Crossrail article suggests that a new station should be built 'in Kensal' (sic). This article says 'Kensal Rise' but doesn't wlink to Kensal Rise station. Can we clarify? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The current map is useless

…in at least two important respects. First, it has no labels of any roads, other locales or landmarks, so that at small scale it might be meaningful in terms of evaluating relative locations. Second, its single label, of the title location, disappears on expansion. All in all, readers leave with only the vaguest sense of where this area is, aided by this map. 165.20.108.155 (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kensal Green. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120304070341/http://archive.brent.gov.uk/demographic.nsf/Documents/Kensal%20Green%20Ward?openDocument to http://archive.brent.gov.uk/demographic.nsf/Documents/Kensal%20Green%20Ward?openDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Kenmont Primary School

I have suggested on the Kenmont Primary School article that it should be merged to this article as it is a non-notable local primary school. I’d be interested in any other comments or opinions. Fob.schools (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

As a listed building it is notable by virtue of the first part of WP:GEOFEAT "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable." Philafrenzy (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• C-Class London-related articles
• Mid-importance London-related articles