Talk:Kensal Green

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)

• There is, I think, some confusion. Kensal Green was the first of the Magnificent Seven cemeteries and depending on the definition of a cemetery I can not believe that it is the first in the United Kingdom as there were many graveyards before this cemetery. If you are referring to the poem by Chesterton, you may be amused that there is a bar in London called: Paradise by way of Kensal Green. JHvW 23:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe that KG cemetery was indeed the first dedicated cemetery (a graveyard is distinct in that it is ordinarily attached to a church) - as it also had catacombs, I believe it opriginally billed itself as Britain's "first necropolis". This is from memories of notices read while walking within it and I do not have a source. Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2021 (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. Wikipedia 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 new station is probably the Old Oak Common, which is a short walk from Kensal Green. It is going to be a purpose built station and has nothing to do with existing stations. JHvW 19:49, 10 July 2020 (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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Kenmont Primary School

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

P.S. The listing is unusually detailed. The school certainly justifies a separate architectural article as well as a briefer mention in this article. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Philafrenzy. As a primary school, it is NOT notable. However, it IS notable as a building listed by Historic England, and "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage". Edwardx (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:GEOFEAT actually has an entire bullet covering buildings which says "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." I'm not sure that Historic England listings on their own achieve that bar. Such listings, however detailed, are primary sources - WP:RS. Fob.schools (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Listed buildings don't need to meet that bar, they have already met the standard of point 1 in being listed on a national heritage register. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Presumably it says that somewhere and you are not just making it up? A pointer to it please? Fob.schools (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

As stated above in 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) 19:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

So why does the guidance distinguish between "artificial Geographical Features" and "Buildings" if the former is meant to include "Buildings"? I'd suggest Buildings are not covered by WP:GEOFEAT. Instead they are covered ny WP:NBUILD and are covered by the bullet I previously mentioned and NOT by the Artificial bullet. If that is the nub of the argument and there is no other supporting or contradicting guidance, then I think we just get an outside opinion on the interpretation. Perhaps on ANI or on Village Pump. Whats your preference? Fob.schools (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Buildings and objects isn't formatted with such logical precision, and WP:GEOFEAT and WP:NBUILD are both mere shortcuts to that entire section rather than to particular bullet-points within it; they weren't carefully named to express a difference. (Similarly, WP:LABEL, WP:RACIST and WP:TERRORIST all point to the same section and don't imply different rules for different contentious labels.) In fact, Wikipedia does presume notability for listed buildings and has a vast number of short articles on them. The category Category:Grade II listed buildings in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham contains many similar to Kenmont Primary School, such as Salutation, Hammersmith. One can work one's way up that category tree to Category:Listed buildings in the United Kingdom, to Category:Heritage registers in the United Kingdom and to Category:Heritage registers, then down other branches to find that, for example, pretty much every listed building in the US too has its own article by now, however brief. 80.41.135.243 (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. If it doesn't say it then it's not a given. Fob.schools (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

First, to put it another way, the page is Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). For notability purposes, buildings and objects are a subset of geographic features.

Second, you mention WP:OTHERSTUFF, an essay on deletion policy (as opposed to a guideline like Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)) much cited when deleting articles on non-notable schools in accordance with consensus and RFcs. Though here you find yourself trying to remove an article on a listed building instead, it may be worth reading it: "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." You might also read the more general essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the lead of which includes "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.".

Thirdly, when you say "If it doesn't say it then it's not a given", you come up against WP:NOTBURO, which documents policy: "the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles." 80.41.135.243 (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. So when the documentation has an entry for Buildings and an entry for ‘Artificial geographical features’, both documenting existing practice, and the subject in question is a Building, why on earth would you try to apply the section on geographical features to the building? Fob.schools (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Explained above, by myself and others. You made a proposal; if you don't understand what's wrong with it, if you won't become more familiar with Wikipedia and engage, you're just wasting our time. Bye. 80.41.135.243 (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose merge as school building is clearly notable through National Heritage list, the most important designation system for buildings in the UK; WP:NBUILDING. Klbrain (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

So, do you believe this is an Artificial Geographical Feature or an historical building, according to that guideline? Fob.schools (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The school is definitely notable by this line "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." from WP:NBUILDING. As this is a merger discussion and not a deletion discussion I also want to point out that this merge doesn't fufill any of the WP:MERGEREASONS. Number 1, 2 and 4 are obviously irrelevant but even point 3 is not fulfilled with the article having the potential of being expanded with more information about the heritage classification, including a history listing and about how the school was planned to be converted to an academy as reported on local news.Trialpears (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

So, do you believe this is an Artificial Geographical Feature or an historical building, according to that guideline? There seems to be slightly conflicting guidance depending on whether it is one or the other. Fob.schools (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe that buildings are a subset of “Artificial Geographical Features”. Both lines apply to buildings. They’re not contradictory since any building with heritage status by definition have at least one suitable source in the form of the heritage protection listing. The heritage listing act as a secondary source in most aspects as it discuss previous reports (see source section of the listing).Trialpears (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Removed postcode W10

I have removed postcode W10 from the infobox. Kensal Green is mostly in NW10. W10 is the area known as Ladbroke Grove and Kensington North (south of the Grand Union Canal) JHvW 19:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC).

Who writes crap like this?

"over recent years" DON'T DO THAT! Apparently (from the reference given), this is now seven years in the past. Anyone care enough to fix it so it does NOT reference some unspecified time? --jae (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done but please remember that anyone can edit nearly any page on Wikipedia. Next time if you want to, you can just follow this guide: WP:HEP. Thank you, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)