Talk:Waltham Abbey

Rename

This page could be moved to Waltham Abbey, Essex which would be a more conventional disambig (and more likely searched phrase). Any objections? MRSC 21:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The only problem I can see with this is that in a link to Waltham Abbey, Essex the Essex bit does not take a reader through to the county page. Most other towns don't seem to have the county suffix as part of their Wiki page title (but then again most other towns don't contain a historic building with exactly the same name as the town). Rushey Platt 20:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just renamed the page from Waltham Abbey, Essex to Waltham Abbey (town). Essex is not an appropriate disambiguation term because the other Watham Abbeys (such as the abbey itself) are also in Essex. Bazonka (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Restructure, please

Two Walthams exist, either side of the River Lea. That to the West, Waltham Cross, acquired the name from the Market Cross erected as one of the overnight stops of Queen Eleanor of Castile's funeral cortège in 1290: it lies on the Roman Ermine Way, the principal road from London to York. That to the east, being closer to the old river crossing, may be older, there is simply no way to know: modern thinking on litoral roadways connecting the lowest point on each river it could be bridged in primitive times (requiring firm gravel footings one tree-trunk's width apart, which then develops a dock downstream, mills upstream, rapidly becoming an urban centre) suggests the Abbey may have been the first ham. I can indulge in speculation here, though: a series of archaeological sites to the North and West of Enfield suggest a connection to the pre-Roman Ridgeway network which begins west of the town. I would therefore suggest a rethink happen to rebalance the two, as an extended village. 5.70.112.105 (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The town is the parish. The parish article should be merged into the town article.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge.

---

The parish and the town are the same, just like Loughton. I am a local and can confirm this. Waltham Abbey town covers the entire parish run by Waltham Abbey town council including Upshire/High Beech/Sewardstone so therefore more than Waltham Abbey BUASD on its own. Parish officially has town status like Loughton. Loughton doesn’t have a separate parish article so WA doesn’t need one either. Parish article is basically the same as the town article and should just be deleted. Billmldn (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Parish councils can by resolution decide to call themselves town councils. That doesn't change the fact that the civil parish contains many more settlements than Waltham Abbey itself. By way of explanation why Wikipedia deals with Loughton as a single article, as you can see from this map the parish of Loughton consists of a single town. MRSC (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@MRSC Your changes to the article basically redefine Waltham Abbey as being the BUASD, which from a local perspective I can say is wrong. Looking at the map of this it includes Upshire as it is part of a continuous urban area. Couldn’t Upshire potentially be considered another settlement? Same as Debden in Loughton or Highams Park in Chingford? The town is the parish, there are large areas of open space between some areas of Waltham Abbey but this does not mean they are not part of Waltham Abbey. High Beech is in the town of Waltham Abbey just as much as Upshire is. Billmldn (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Both the Loughton and Chingford articles include Debden/Highams Park as part of those towns, by the way. Billmldn (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The Waltham Abbey BUASD is a definition of Waltham Abbey, not the only definition. It is no more correct to say the settlement of Waltham Abbey is the BUASD as it is to say it is the civil parish. The article should give all definitions, which it does. MRSC (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The civil parish is literally the town. Not only is the parish council called ‘Waltham Abbey Town Council’ but the parish of Waltham Abbey has the status of a town. It’s called Waltham Abbey Town Council and not Waltham Holy Cross Parish Council for a reason. The BUASD is not a definition of Waltham Abbey. It is a conurbation within it. Also, if the article should give all definitions why was the LONDON E4 postal area, 020 area code and LOUGHTON postal area removed? Billmldn (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That isn't the case and has never been the case. If you look at the source cited in the article the parish was traditionally divided into four: Waltham Abbey township and the hamlets if Upshire, Holyfield, and Sewardstone.

I think part of the misunderstanding here boils down to the meaning of "town". There are two at play here:

• A civil parish with a parish council that has resolved to call itself a town using powers of the Local Government Act 1972 and is now governed by a town council, e.g. Waltham Abbey (parish)
• A human settlement of sufficient size, e.g. Waltham Abbey

Both things can be called a town, but with different meanings.

Hope that makes things clearer. MRSC (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The town and parish are definatelly different things with different boundaries but the general convention is that if a parish has the same name as a settlement it is normally covered in the settlement even if boundaries are different unless like Scotforth (parish) the parish excludes the settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That's not quite right. The convention is to use a single article if the settlement and parish are substantially the same. The same approach is used for settlements that are also local government districts. MRSC (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The convention has always AFAIK been to do this and there was a RFC about this last year where I asked about if parishes with an ONS BUA should be split but it seems there was a consensus against that. Of the thousands of parishes in England with the same name as a settlement only a handful have separate articles. See also Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

That's probably right. In the vast majority of cases the parish consists primarily of the main settlement of the same name, so there is no reason to have two articles. In the case of Waltham Abbey there are clearly other settlements and the parish has been known for the majority of its history by another name in any case. MRSC (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases (with the exception of parishes that formerly had the same area as urban districts) they tend to cover large areas of open land and in many cases other settlements and the convention is still to have 1 article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Crouch, Swale, @MRSC, based on the above, I think that these articles should be merged regardless of whether Waltham Abbey’s districts comprise the town or not. A single article covering WA as “a town and civil parish” makes perfect sense to me. Billmldn (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Billmldn: Yes it should as standard. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

On this point @MRSC, the BUASD area you’ve used for the “town” population includes parts of the other divisions. Since that source was written, the parish of Waltham Holy Cross was renamed to Waltham Abbey and established as a town. But either way, whether the entire parish or just an undefined part of it is the town, I think it makes sense to have a standard article about WA as a “town and civil parish”. @Crouch, Swale. Billmldn (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree the two articles should be merged, and have now added merge templates to both articles alerting users to this discussion. The convention for parishes which share the same name as settlements is that we have the one article covering both meanings, as is set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about parishes. We would need to quote both the built-up area and parish populations, but that can be done and I would argue is more informative to be presented together. We also need to take care with use of the term "town" - legally the parish is the town. The built-up area might be termed the town in common parlance, but that is not the legal position, and so phrases like "Waltham Abbey is a town in the civil parish of Waltham Abbey" are factually misleading. We must also bear in mind that the smaller hamlets of the parish away from the main built-up area still form part of the wider community. The current Waltham Abbey page is written from the perspective that the built-up area is the "proper" definition of the town, whereas I would argue both the built-up area and the parish are valid meanings which attach to the name and it's better to discuss them both together. Stortford (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes its standard not just in England to combine municipalities but in most parts of the world unless like in Denmark a municipality is equivalent to a district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2023 (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.