Talk:Erith

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Erith. 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:

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: 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Erith. 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Erith. 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) 01:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents[edit]

Over the next couple of weeks I'm going to try to rationalise the lists of notable residents of Bexley towns. Each one currently has a long and unsourced lists of people who might have gone to school there, may anecdotally have been seen in the area, may be from a neighbouring town etc. (see Sidcup for example). Also, many people were born in, say, Bexleyheath but grew up in, say, Welling. Meanwhile the article List of people from Bexley is woefully underpopulated. So I'm going to try to migrate most of the lists to there as a central list (with fully explanation of their local connection and history etc), add them to the articles about their secondary schools if the sources back that up, and only leave people on the list in articles about the specific towns if the source clearly states that they lived in that place. (see current list at Bexleyheath for an example). This should make the info more reliable, easier to check, and easier to understand. Any comments, objections, suggestions? Jdcooper (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define Towns? Why exclude Villages and Hamlets? — Preceding unsigned
I don't exclude them. If the village or hamlet (or more accurately in the case of this area, neighbourhood) has a wikipedia article and there is a source pinning a famous resident to that place, then it's all good. Jdcooper (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Domesday contradiction[edit]

This article claimed that, "Erith passed into the possession of Bishop Odo and is mentioned in the Domesday Survey", but provided no evidence.

The contradiction is Local Government asserting that: the most populated area was by the river at Lessness. This area probably included Erith which is not mentioned in Domesday.

Source: http://www.bexley.gov.uk/article/10263/The-Bexley-Area-in-the-Domesday-Book

I have modified the sentences to remove the contradiction. More generally, the article does not identify the earliest mention of Erith.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Erith. 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) 09:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Erith. 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) 22:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Lead[edit]

Historically part of Kent, it was absorbed into Greater London in 1965 and today forms part of the London Borough of Bexley. It seems to be a location specific standard sentence being used across Greater London articles and is not someone's personal creation, but rather than bring this up at that project talk page, I'll mention it here. My views are that the sentence is not ideal, is confusing, misleading, and factually incorrect. Historically part of Kent implies it is no longer part of Kent, which is wrong. It's a rather clumsy way of trying to say that Erith is in the historic county of Kent, as lead guidelines advise. it was absorbed into Greater London in 1965 is misleading because GL of the 1965 act did not exist to do any absorbing, and all GL did take over was local government responsibility. This sort of wording is hardly encyclopedic. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Within the boundaries of the historic county of Kent, it has formed part of the London Borough of Bexley since 1965 is far better. It does not imply that Erith is no longer a part of any form of Kent, and no mention is made of Greater London at all, or of absorbing. Roger 7 Roger (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on my deletion a few days ago that has been reverted and then re-reverted I judged the comments by an IP with only one previous edit (bot reverted as vandalism) to be a personal attack on me rather than an opposing opinion written in an aggressive style. For that reason I deleted it, which is allowed under talk page guidelines. I seem to be honoured with occasional but ongoing attention on these SE London wiki pages, amounting IMO to a campaign, that began a few years back. This includes a series of socks that have tried to pretend they are me, using similar user names, that have been removed after first causing some confusion and disruption. This IP edit that I removed seems to be part of that ongoing campaign. I hope it goes without saying that I never remove opinions I do not like. In fact, I welcome constructive opinion on this historic county topic especially because there seems to be very little of it beyond "Yes it is: no it isn't" This deleted comment was, IMO, a personal attack, not an opinion. Whatever, all very amusing, until it enters the realm of blatant pointless insults. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that, Roger. I agree, and that's why I reverted myself. I suppose Wikipedia draws a lot of people to curiously edit their hometowns' pages, and if you are the one reverting inappropriate edits you will bring yourself to their attention. Jdcooper (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have just realised that the edits in question were not actually by me, but were in fact by two socks doing exactly what I said above - trying to confuse by pretending they were me. Well, if they fooled me and caused confusion and time wasting all round then the socks certainly seem to have achieved their aim! FTAOD, I am Roger 8, not Roger 9 or Roger 7!

Erith explosion[edit]

Hi User:Ttocserp, can you explain what your issue is with my edits?

You wrote:

  • On 1 October 1864 a 461⁄2 ton gunpowder explosion blew out the river wall, exposing large areas of South London to flooding at high tide. A crowd of navvies and soldiers directed by a local engineer barely managed to plug the gap before high water, avoiding a calamity.

I simply incorporated this link: Embanking of the tidal Thames#The Erith explosion into the body of the paragraph, changed "barely managed" to "were able to" and "avoiding a calamity" to "preventing far more serious consequences", which is more encyclopaedic than journalistic language. I have no idea what you are talking about re: sourced/unsourced content, because I didn't change any content and you didn't provide a source for your paragraph in the first place. Jdcooper (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I see what you're doing. Revert if you like.Ttocserp 16:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor text edits[edit]

@Bmcln1:

To explain my edits for clarity that were clearly reverted without close reading:

  • You wrote: The early settlement was based around it, so that the centre of Erith was once west of its current location.
  • I wrote: The early settlement was based around it, meaning that the centre of Erith was once west of its current location.

"So" here implies causation. "Meaning" implies inference.

  • New suggestion: The early settlement was based around it, indicating that the centre of Erith was once west of its current location.
  • You wrote: ...recording a grant by the Bishop of the East Saxons of lands at Erith.
  • I wrote: ...recording a grant by the Bishop of the East Saxons of land at Erith.

I acknowledge that there is very little difference here, but my phrasing was a slight modernisation, which I don't consider controversial.

  • You wrote: ...and was until the 1850s essentially a small riverside port, made prominent by King Henry VIII's decision...
  • I reverted to: ...and was until the 1850s essentially a small riverside port, given prominence by King Henry VIII's decision...

"given prominence" is a much more widely used phrasing that "made prominent". I thought about a compromise clearer way of saying it (eg. "given importance") but "given prominence" is the most precise.

  • You wrote: From 1881 an area north-west of Erith's centre was held by a cable works founded by William Callender.
  • I wrote: From 1881 an area north-west of Erith's centre was the site of a cable works founded by William Callender.

I don't know how you came up with "held by", there is no such collocation as "hold an area" that I've heard. I reworded it from the previous poor phrasing, honestly I don't know what the problem is with my new suggestion.

  • You wrote: Engineering became an important industry round Erith, with armaments and cables the main products. Vickers was a major employer and linked to the Royal Arsenal at nearby Woolwich.
  • I wrote: Engineering became an important industry in Erith, with armaments and cables as the main products. Vickers was a major employer, with links to the Royal Arsenal at nearby Woolwich.

"round" Erith is an informal spoken phrasing, I don't know why you changed it from "around", but I changed it to "in" for simplicity and clarity. "With cables as the main products" is clearer and more modern phrasing than "with cables the main products", though both are fine. The use of 'and' in "a major employer and linked to" doesn't clarify the connection between these two attributes, my phrasing attempted to give some context to this connection.

  • You wrote: In 1961, plans were laid to redevelop Erith as a modern, sleek shopping and working environment. This meant clearing sub-standard housing by the riverside and altering the street layout. Some of the buildings erected, such as the social housing tower blocks, have a brutalist form typical of overspill estates put up by councils in major cities as an affordable way to clear the slums.
  • I wrote: In 1961, Erith began to be redeveloped as a modern shopping and working environment, through the clearing of sub-standard housing by the riverside and alterations to the street layout. Some of the new buildings, such as the social housing tower blocks, have a brutalist form typical of overspill estates built by councils in major cities as an affordable way to clear the slums.

Your edits were an improvement on the previous wording of this paragraph, I just tried to tidy it up a bit, smoothen the wording and simplify some phrasing. What about my edits do you object to?

Obviously a minor quibble, but your wording struck me as slightly strange and attributing some kind of agency to the LGA Act, so I changed it back to the clearer wording.

  • You wrote: Since the late 1990s Erith has undergone marked changes, with the Erith Western Thames Gateway project as the culmination.
  • I wrote: Since the late 1990s Erith has undergone marked changes, culminating in the Erith Western Thames Gateway project.

I simplified the phrasing slightly for clarity. What about my edits do you object to?

  • You wrote: Since 2000 a significant number of new flats have been built by the river by private developers.
  • I wrote: Since 2000 a significant number of new flats have been built on the river by private developers.

Edited to avoid repetition of 'by', which I expected would be uncontroversial.

  • You wrote: ...and is expected to continue the regeneration of the area, hitherto a large underused area of the town centre. Bexley Council is seeking there a mixed-use development with a potential of 6,000 sq. m of new commercial space and over 500 new homes.
  • I wrote: ...and is expected to include the regeneration of a large underused area of the town centre, earmarked by Bexley Council for a mixed-use development with up to 6,000 sq. m of new commercial space and over 500 new homes.

Phrasing edited for simplicity and clarity. What about these edits do you object to?

  • You wrote: The median house price in Erith ward was £181,000 in 2014. This was the third lowest out of the 628 wards in Greater London...
  • I wrote: The median house price in Erith ward was £181,000 in 2014, the third lowest of the 628 wards in Greater London...

Edited for smoother wording, avoid duplication of nouns in short clauses, which I did not expect to be controversial.

Honestly can't see how this is controversial. The part of the town in North End is the easternmost, in Colyers the southernmost. We can try and find an alternative wording, but I don't see any problem whatsoever with what I have already suggested.

  • You wrote: The David Ives Stadium next to the Leisure Centre, often called Erith Stadium, houses Bexley Athletic Club.
  • I wrote: The David Ives Stadium next to the Leisure Centre, often called Erith Stadium, is the home track of Bexley Athletic Club.

'houses' implies that something is inside/indoors. This stadium is not that. The previous wording of "is the home of" was not terribly encyclopaedic, so I tried to find a clear rephrasing that said what it meant. What is your objection to my suggestion?

Again, no distinction in meaning, but I chose a slightly less oblique wording for clarity and ease of reading for eg. non-native speakers who might be reading.

Your version is grammatically incorrect. Manchester United play at Old Trafford, Erith & Belvedere play at Park View Road. Perhaps you are American, in which case fair enough, the difference is down to dialect, but this article is about a British topic, so it's common practice to use British English.

Regarding references for the list of notable people, yes, all the entries on this list need references establishing that they are connected to Erith. If they are lacking, it's because I couldn't find them when I was sourcing this list. If there are references on the individuals' articles, by all means add them here, but the tags are appropriate.

There was a verb missing. This was clearly an editing error, which I corrected, again uncontroversially, I would hope. The fact that this was also reverted indicates that you did not examine my edits closely before reverting en masse.

I'm more than happy to discuss any/all of the above changes, but I would ask you to at least read changes before you revert them and accuse other editors of "fiddling" with yours. Because that's how Wikipedia works, it's a continuous improvement by all editors of the existing text. Cheers. Jdcooper (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I read them. Nothing much wrong with most, but mine are shorter, which is a consideration. Bmcln1 (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they are shorter, more than a couple of characters? I'm reverting on the basis of my above explanations. Of course feel free to adjust my text, but preferably with some indication why either here or in edit summary. Cheers! Jdcooper (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erith&oldid=1205140826"