Talk:Stroud Green

Splitting out of detailed history content

I'm not wanting to insensitively trample on the impressive hard work that has been done by others, but I am quite concerned that the length and balance of this, the "main" article on Stroud Green, needs some attention. The majority of people who look up Stroud Green on Wikipedia will not be doing so in order to get such a detailed historical study, but to get a more basic overview of the area as it is today. However, it's clearly a credit and asset to Wikipedia that such detail is available. As such, I have proposed that the detailed historical elements be split out into a new article called History of Stroud Green, London Comments? Cmch83 (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has responded to this can the message box now be removed from the page itself? Ucypanp (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a great job's been done the the SG article. No faulting it at all. However, I'd also agree with Cmch83 that it would better serve Wikipedia readers to have it split out into a new article. hjuk (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, so can those who want to make the changes now stop talking about it and just get on with it? Either way, the message boxes have been there quite long enough. Ucypanp (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I - belatedly - agree as well. The problem is that splitting and moving/merging content is can sometimes be quite a job in technical terms, especially if you want to keep clarity in respect of the WP history of all the relevant parts. That fact, and the fact that this is a little seen page, is probably the reason why no one managed to "stop talking about it and just get on with it". Anyway, since the bulk of this page is now about the history of the area, probably the simplest and least worst option is to rename this page "History of ...", then to rename the road page as "Stroud Green, London", and basically rewrite it, adding in any contemporary material from this page about the wider area - which would also solve the problem of the road itself having a dedicated page, which it probably doesn't need. --Nickhh (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

History Section

Good work Ucypanp. You seem to have put alot in to it.

Just a quick note to say that if you want a pic of Eel Pie House for the article, I can upload one and flick you the link. hjuk (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Eel Pie House

Yes please! Ucypanp (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, why not just add the image at a suitable place in the text? Ucypanp (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded the image as Image:Eel Pie House.jpg hjuk (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, duly added. BTW (just to be academic) let me know if you have details of the original, i.e. artist, medium (watercolour?), owner, current location etc. :)) Ucypanp (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Boundaries?

Ucypanp where do you draw the boundaries for SG? One of your photos suggests that in your view it goes at least as far north as Mountview Road. hjuk (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For my contributions to this page I have based the boundary area on the description statement for what constitutes Stroud Green that is given in the Borough's Conservation Area rationale, quoted in the page itself: "The triangular area enclosed by Stroud Green Road and the Haringey/Islington border to the south and west, Mount View Road to the north, and the railway line to the east". This also seems to correspond very well with the references to Stroud Green that are given in the various volumes of the Victoria County History of Middlesex that I used as the primary sources for much of the historical information.Ucypanp (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a clear rationale. I wasn't setting you up for a dispute.

It might be helpful if you stick your definition in the article. It's news to me for instance. I'd always thought of Stroud Green's northern boundary as being the railway line. But I'm not pretending to be an expert here. I know from my Harringay stuff that there are more than a few views. I came to the conclusion that the best definition of an area is where the locals say it is. hjuk (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback on my additions. As I said above, I do already quote the Borough rationale in the article itself, but wiil make it more prominent, and find a place for it at the top.

Ucypanp (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Womersley House

Does anyone know what occupied the site of Womersley House and grounds after it was demolished in 1960? There is development going on there now, (March 2008) but it is not clear to me what is being removed. Ucypanp (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It's not clear to me that Stroud Green Road warrants a page on its own. I think there's a good case for merging it with this much more substantial article, particularly within the context of the changes already suggested. That may mean splitting this article into two or more, but all focussed on various aspects or periods of Stroud Green as a commplete entity. hjuk (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has responded to this can the message box now be removed from the page itself? Ucypanp (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

north-south is east-west

In the section headed Transport the writer says that the Stroud Green Road runs north from Finsbury Park. I agree that intuitively it seems thus, but in fact SGR runs westerly from Finsbury Park station, its alignment being almost east-west, as anyone who on a summer morning, early, has walked towards Finsbury Park station from the Hanley Road/Stapleton Hall Road end and found themselves all the way facing into the sun, and when walking back in the early evening found themselves again facing into the sun.

If there is no objection I will shortly amend this, unless someone else beats me to it!

Ucypanp (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)