Talk:Hampstead Heath Ponds

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lakes

	Lakes portal Hampstead Heath Ponds is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Capitalisation

Should be Hampstead Ponds. Andy Mabbett 22:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ullo Andy! LTNS! I remember you. "In derelict sidings, the poppies entwine/With cattle trucks, lying in wait, for the next time" From Roger Waters.

Yep. it's up for deletion at the moment (please feel free to cast a vote!) but when that's over, if it's kept, we can move it or whatever. Or you could just Be bold and do it yourself. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 23:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice gmaptrack link ... not sure whether the article can be renamed whilst in vfd? Tim! (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes do it, but you're not really supposed to. If I do I make sure I edit the link to the VfD notice in the article, and then I add "moved to Somewhere else or whatever" to the heading of the VfD so people know it's been moved. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 18:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 21:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be renamed to Highgate Ponds

Since that's what they're called? 193.34.231.226 (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

I can't see the merger proposal indicated at the head of the article, which is a pity, because I agree that this article ought to be subsumed into the Hampstead Heath article. At the moment, this article is slightly confused (unlike the main article), because there are two sets of ponds: one (near Highgate) called Highgate Ponds, with the two single sex bathing ponds and one (near Hampstead) called Hampstead Ponds, with the mixed sex bathing pond. There are also a large number of other ponds, not used for bathing, which the article does not make clear. It's easy to see which ponds are which by looking at the A-Z. Google maps is inaccurate in this respect, because it omits Hampstead Ponds entirely and only shows three of Highgate Ponds.

If this article is to be maintained, it should be substantially rewritten, but I see no merit in this when the correct information is available at Hampstead_Heath#Highgate_and_Hampstead_Ponds.

86.147.234.244 (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have some expert and local knowledge I've done a quick re-edit. Do you think it's now clearer? The emphasis of this article should be their use for swimming.--Lidos (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lidos, I think your edit has improved the clarity but I still found it rather confusing - having been directed from two distinct links on another page (both pointing at this article!), implying that the Hampstead Ponds and Highgate Ponds are two separate things. This article seems to be saying that the three swimming ponds can together be called the Hampstead *or* the Highgate Ponds. The article linked in the comment above yours Hampstead_Heath#Highgate_and_Hampstead_Ponds does seem to explain it more clearly, and if this article is to be kept then I think it would be good to import some of the material from there to explain more clearly that the Hampstead and Highgate Ponds are two distinct groups of ponds, formed by damming two separate streams; and that just three of the ponds are designated for swimming. Thanks 108.171.128.180 (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Hampstead Heath Ponds

As has been previously explained, Hampstead Ponds isn't an accurate or satisfactory name for this article. I propose using the compromise article title "Hampstead Heath Ponds", then within the article the main 8 Highate Ponds and the three main Hampstead Ponds can be described. I see no issue with Whitestone pond being included too, despite it arguably not being on the Heath. This structure would closely match the existing "Hampstead Heath#Areas_of_the_heath", which would aid consistency.Bloodholds (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links

The London Pools Campaign website seems to be not maintained anymore. Instead, links to these groups could be added:

Kenwood Ladies’ Pond Association

United Swimmers Association of Hampstead Heath

Mixed Pond Action Group (depending on if this is about the Hampstead Ponds or Highgate Ponds) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.33.8 (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest there should be a secton about the History of the Hampstead Ponds, jsut as there is for, for example, Brockwell Park lido.

I know that a parachute landmine landed on the Ponds during the last War, causing several deaths. I do not know the reference for this, but have been told it. Nicholas J Reed (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many ponds?

User:Spike 'em just locked this down from the approximate "some thirty" to a straight "thirty", but is there an exact source for how many ponds there are? https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/assets/Green-Spaces/hampstead-heath-map.pdf lists 18 by name, 24 if you count each of the Seven Sisters separately, but also has a few unnumbered blue splodges. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to reinstate the "some" if it really does convey an inexact number, but I think there are better words to use (approximately / about / roughly?).Spike 'em (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]