Talk:Bromley-by-Bow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How to write about settlements[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements provides guidance on how to improve this article. In a nutshell, there are quite a few issues which still need to be addressed.

In summary, the suggested headings for sections are as follows: 

   * Geography and administration
   * History 
   * Landmarks
   * Demographics
   * Economics
   * Places of Interest
   * Culture
   * Present Day (Communal facilities, Transport, Education, Industry & Commerce, Sport)
   * Notable Residents (ie people who meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people)

On this basis, quite a lot needs to be done to improve this article. Click the link to the guide to see more details about what sort of things should be included in each action Cosmopolitancats 00:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous passes at issues like demographics have concentrated on areas for which comparable figures exist over time. For instance, in respect of this area: Metropolitan Borough of Poplar covers the period 1801-1901. Comparable figures are available for that area upto 1961. Borough statistics are available, and should certainly be included in the borough for 1971-date. If you want to do a lot of adding up, you could probably create a boro' table for 1801 to date. Not sure how useful that would be.
Ward statistics are very dodgy. If you checked the reference on Tower Hamlets wards under Bow, you would find that ward boundaries are redrawn - and often renamed - every eight years (West and East Bow, for instance only existed since 2001[1] - and will probably disappear at the next revision). So, no comparable ward figures can be obtained from census to census.
Returns from the 2001 census should also be treated with suspicion. Firstly, in London approximately 30% of the population turns over every twelve months (source:Electoral register revision); secondly, all London boro's complain that ethnic minorities are severely under-reported by the census. While I'm all for providing figs, they shouldn't be presented with any spurious claim to accuracy. There are intermediate figs from the GLA, which seek to measure diversity in an area, proportions might usefully be shown, but there are no reliable figures on which to base definitive tables. Kbthompson 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are comprehensive statistics available for every London Borough at ward level for the present day from the 2001 census. The problems re boundaries have always existed - one just has to live with them. They're not a reason not to report something. The purpose of an encyclopeadia is is to report what exists. If there are concerns about reliability that can also be reported if statements exist from reliable sources which can be verified. It's not our job to offer opinion although obviously we can discuss here how it should be represented on the basis of available material and commentary. I don't propose to do any exercises in relation to past statitistics although those are doubtless available from the council. Do you? Cosmopolitancats 19:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The past statistics are not comparable, for the reasons stated above. Figures in isolation without any kind of longitudinal comparison, are well, eh, numbers. They may impress someone, but there is no meaning to be drawn from them. Anyway, the population from the ward figure will be between 4,500 to 5,000 people (from the definition of a ward, there should be about 1,500 voters per councillor). But then these locations aren't coterminous with wards ... Kbthompson 22:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But comparisons can be against peers at the same point in time. It doesn't all have to be about history! So that the population of a place in 2001 can be compared with the population of another place in 2001. Also since we can't locate everything in history and need to talk about the present day we'll need to present figures in relation to present day administrative arrangements (ie the reason why geography and administration comes before history in the guidance). I've got the source data for the 2001 census and will include it.Cosmopolitancats 23:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And guess what, because of the Representation of the People's Act, they will be the same (well, +-10%); that is the point. The only point in including them is if there is something exceptionally salient about the figures, and then you would be better off looking at something like the GLA diversity figures (based on the census, but providing an independent interpretation of the figures). The point is what can you say about Bromley-by-Bow that you can't say the same thing about any other ward in LBTH? They have, by definition, the same modern population - that's why they change. If there is no saliency to the information, it's just vanity. It would be like me writing pages on medieval field ownership - it would be true, but not important to the casual reader - by all means link to where they can read the latest figures in an official publication but don't beat people over the head with redundant information. Kbthompson 23:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be redundant in your opinion - but that's your opinion. Only the overall number of people is about the same - the demographic profile will vary quite significantly across the borough. There is now much more variation than in the past. It is also wikipedia practice too include such data and since the data is available it has been included. I've also included the sources - which include the overall LBTH data - and there are some significant differences. You might want to take a look.Cosmopolitancats 23:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Etymology[edit]

It's actually "Stratford-atte-Bowe" according to Chaucer. I think modern versions of Chaucer also modernise the spelling. Should the article not use the spelling associated with the time in which the name was used? Or at least reference it using this spelling? Cosmopolitancats 16:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to template:reflist, so now the original reference appears you can check it in the original source. The etymology ref for Bow calls it Stratford-atte-Bowe; this text source leaves out the hyphen. There's a full blown research project The Use of the Hyphen in Chaucer's Middle English. Actually, people have probably founded careers on it. Kbthompson 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in the least bit bothered by the hyphen - let others worry about that! what I was referring to was the spelling - it was listed as "Stratford at Bow" - which was a tad too modern for its usage!Cosmopolitancats 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey?[edit]

< The Abbey was destroyed at the time of the Dissolution >

Which abbey was this? The article has not mentioned any abbey up to this point. (Is the Priory that is mentioned in the previous paragraph actually the building that was destroyed?) 81.132.148.208 (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bromley-by-Bow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bromley-by-Bow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bromley-by-Bow&oldid=1206445173"