Talk:Hackney Wick

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

Untitled[edit]

It's not in the reader's best interests to separate Hackney Wick from Hackney, of which it is an integral part. --Wetman 09:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree at all (well I wouldn't). I've just done a clean-up job to disambiguate the whole Hackney question, so have directed the main use of the head term 'Hackney' to the modern London borough page. By this criterion, Hackney (district), in the sense of a neighbourhood, becomes just one small part of the modern borough (I've moved it to a page called Hackney Central) and it is certainly not something you can merge with Hackney Wick, any more than you can merge it with Homerton. (Or are you saying we should not have a list of districts within boroughs? - Apart from anything else, I believe that this borough->district format is an approved part of the Wikipedia London Project.)

Hackney Wick surely constitutes a discrete neighbourhood with a character of its own - and it's quite a way from Hackney Central, further than Homerton, in fact. For the other older usage of Hackney, meaning the pre-1965 borough, we do have a Metropolitan borough page. I've covered them all on the disambiguation page, anyway.

Tarquin Binary 17:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additional - not to sound so abrupt :) Can I suggest taking a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London. It's probably the right discussion to air points about the ambiguity of place names. As you can see from it, there is considerable pressure to make the Borough the head term in any given case, but it seems to have been left since last year.

Frankly it's the only thing that makes sense, if one is to have district lists for each borough (which I am actually in favour of, and why I tried it on my home borough) If you take the Islington entry, which I have not converted - it goes to the notional Islington, roughly speaking the old LCC borough. But the problem is 1) that there are districts like Angel which are linked from the Borough entry leading to a bit of duplication. 2) There is already an LCC Metropolitan borough entry covering the same area. This is also duplication.

Some duplication is fine (I like the idea of having districts where you can expand entries, so that the borough entry can be honed down) but this is frankly a mess. Hoping to clean up the Hackney stuff even more when I get time.

Tarquin Binary 17:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to show - I'm from Hackney borough, Stoke Newington district - so ignorant of the ways of easterners ;) - have just changed Hackney (central) to Hackney Central on the suggestion of someone from that locale, because that's the way they'd write it (or say it - no implied brackets). Certainly no-one from Hackney Central would consider it the the same as the Wick or vice versa. Totally different 'hood.

Tarquin Binary 18:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Train stations[edit]

I think the train section should actually be limited to active (or anticipated) stations. Details on the former Vickie Pk station should be listed under the history section.

Further, the designated route to Stratford Int is a branch of the DLR from Stratford Regional. While the station isn't far from Hackney Wick, I'm not sure what arrangements will be in place to provide access from this side. It will certainly not be accessible until after the games. So, perhaps should not be included here. Cheers. Kbthompson 10:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus history[edit]

Hi

I'm not going to take it out - immediately - but is the bus history here really notable? It would be more normal to add such details about running and routes against articles on the individual buses. I'm willing to be persuaded, but ultimately wikipedia is not just an aggregation of unrelated 'facts'. There needs to be some direction to it, and that is notability. Certainly some of the companies that were here were household names, but I think that could also do with some trimming. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Art[edit]

I think perhaps, due to teh great number of studio complexes, live work units and art galleries (i.e. the general large population of artists) in Hackney Wick that perhaps there should be a dedicated section to Fine Art or Fine Arts???--Amedeo Felix (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the key is notability - add references to their significance in National reviews and papers. I'm inclined to think exemplars in the article are appropriate as to what goes on locally, but is it significant enough for more than a couple of sentences? Take care not to gush, or use peacock words. This is not an advertising section. People will trim and edit your prose mercilessly. For example, Wick Fisheries wasn't particularly notable - but when he retired after 50 years it made all the national papers; so, it achieves a posthumous notability. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for the advice. I think it unnecessary however, because I don't "gush" or use "peacock words", a highly subjective thing to say though if I may be critical. Technical terms may seem to fit into such terms, but are oft necessary to describe complex notions. It is quite well known now how many artists are based in the East End, and specifically around Hackney Wick. Of course stating specific facts will hopefully all be backed up with verifiable references. I am of course biased being an artist, but I must stress that art is certainly important enough to warrant specific mention especially where there are significant numbers of practitioners and venues.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hackney Wick. 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) 19:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Hackney Wick. 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) 12:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hackney_Wick&oldid=1207503897"