Talk:Watford/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Watford. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Initial message
LOL "It was confirmed in the Watford Observer on 30th October 2005 - to the surpise of few residents - that Watford is the 'binge drinking capital' of Hertfordshire." - Yeah I lived there for a year - it's quite a bizarre place really - it's really trashy without being really dangerous - the high street is just as good as many high streets out there and the drunks don't seem to mind you much. But at nights and especially weekends, the apocalypse begin - the whole street is a series of cheap bars such as witherspoons - imagine Goldie Looking Chains that's the clientele there. Lovely! Adidas 19:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Hosepipe ban
Is the passage referring to Watford as often having hosepipe bans due to droughts really necessary. Seems too topical, exaggerated and irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyueck (talk • contribs) 01:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Nightlife
Nightlife I dont know about the pissing in the pond section. Its not quite that bad.. theres quite a lot of police around most nights to ensure that doesnt really happen.
watford
Why is this place called watford and what is its origin
- Althougb the explanation of Watford's origin by 81.145.241.27 seems reasonable, this really needs to be referenced to a reliable source. Cheers •CHILLDOUBT• 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Airport
Will anyone object to me changing this section because the airport is now leavesden studios and is not operational
People
Elton John was not born in Watford but Pinner in Middlesex 62.136.238.65 01:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Kate Nash - all sources I can find point to Kate Nash being from Harrow (I'm not convinced working in Watford's River Island is enough for Watford satus). Does anyone have any different information? Will delete after a week unless someone can add a reference. Ceeess 10:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Referencing
The Watford page is poorly referenced, with little or no links to source material to back it up. It could be greatly enhanced by using proper and accurate references for all the material. --Lobster blogster 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- The formatting is bad also. The infobox is using an obsolete model, and the lead section does not conform with WP:LEAD (it is too long and does not really sum up the article).
- See the UK settlement style guide for the correct use of headings. Jhamez84 11:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tips here, Dr Finkbottle will follow this up at a later date. I am also aware that the borough arms were granted 16th October 1922 and are not as displayed here. --Dr Finkbottle 08:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Picture
Does any one have a clearer picture of the Watford logo. This one really looks shoody, and I think either we should have a clearer one, or none at all. 24.68.249.197 20:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Gallows
I just deleted the entry on Gallows the punk band. For three reasons: 1. They are not "A Notable Person" 2. The link was to Gallows rather than Gallows (band) [if that has been the only problem I would have just fixed it] and 3. The description was too subjective. Suggest that if the user is very keen they might want to add a specific section on Watford culture or similar.Ceeess 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Pronunciation
The IPA pronunciation currently reads /ˈwɒtfəd/. I noticed there's no r in there, but the sound file sounds like the guy is saying -ford and not fod. Is this a typo? Or am I reading the IPA chart wrong? 69.20.226.218 (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think the sound file is wrong, and it should be an unaccented schwa, which could only have an r before a vowel. The articles on Guildford and Hereford agree, but Oxford doesn't. Kanguole (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Name Origin
Am I right in believing the origin of our town name derives from an old land owner, Watter, of the ford approximately were Tesco Extra is today? The area was known as 'Watter's Ford' then became shortened to Wats-Ford and then ultimately to Watford. This story seems like it could be folk-lore although it does seem credible. I cannot find any online references, does anyone know of any evidence? George5210 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- As the article says, it's one theory of many, according to the book cited. The ford would have been on Lower High Street, but the Colne used to have two streams there, and I'm not sure which one it was. Kanguole (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
North of Watford Gap
Is it just me, or is this section completely and utterly wrong? Aside from having no references to anything, the section goes on about the phrase being about north of the Town, but the phrase is correctly quoted as "North of Watford Gap", which indeed means the village area 50 or so miles north of Watford the town. Saying it is linked to Watford Gap is an understatement, as that is where the phrase originates from, not the other way round.
This can easily be proven by multiple references - both online and in physical form - and I am sure that anyone who actually went to school would also have been taught that this is the actual phrase. So, I'm guessing its ok for someone to rewrite this section so it is actually correct? swf bladetalk 16:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Given the way you put the question I'd love to reply it is just you, but a search on google throws up 109000 references supporting Watford Gap as opposed to 148000 for Watford. The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable supports Watford (http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t214.e7617), as does Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable 16th ed. (ISBN 0304350966). So, it is correct and doesn't need someone to correct it. Bazj (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- At my age, I have to confess to living in London and having heard the phrase "north of Watford" before the M1 was built and and anyone had ever heard of Watford Gap Services. Emeraude (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- And for a reliable source, here's the Oxford English Dictionary: "Watford: The name of a town on the N.W. edge of the London conurbation, used with allusion to the view attributed to Londoners that north of the metropolis there is nothing of any significance to English national or cultural life." Emeraude (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Which is pretty much the opposite of the description given in the article: in other words, the "North of Watford" allusion is used by those living North of London who regard Londoners as blinkered, and unable to see beyond their own borders and the edges of the Greater London "bubble". (e.g. "How would you know, you've never even been north of Watford!") 87.112.40.186 (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- The original Watford Gap can be traced back to the middle of the 18th century at the height of the popularity of Stage Coaches and is in Staffordshire close to Sutton Coldfield. It is adjacent to Watling Street, the present day A5 and is close to a major cross road between north-south and east-west routes.here it probably became known as the notional cross-over between the North and South of England. Later it appearred on OS maps so long predates the M1 Servicew Station and the town of Watford. Tmol42 (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Which is pretty much the opposite of the description given in the article: in other words, the "North of Watford" allusion is used by those living North of London who regard Londoners as blinkered, and unable to see beyond their own borders and the edges of the Greater London "bubble". (e.g. "How would you know, you've never even been north of Watford!") 87.112.40.186 (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- And for a reliable source, here's the Oxford English Dictionary: "Watford: The name of a town on the N.W. edge of the London conurbation, used with allusion to the view attributed to Londoners that north of the metropolis there is nothing of any significance to English national or cultural life." Emeraude (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- At my age, I have to confess to living in London and having heard the phrase "north of Watford" before the M1 was built and and anyone had ever heard of Watford Gap Services. Emeraude (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Urban population
The urban population in the header is simply wrong as it refers to the Watford Urban Subdivision of the Greater London Urban Area. This section should be for the population of the town's urban area which seeing as it is part of the Greater London Urban Area is 8.5 million, this change keep's getting reverted dont want to start an edit war so put it up on talk page. Is just leaving this section blank an acceptable compromise? Eopsid (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- The population of the Watford subdivision seems entirely appropriate for the urban population field of the infobox of the Watford article. Readers come to this article to read about Watford, not London, and treating Greater London as the Watford urban area seems backwards. Kanguole 12:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Kanguole, The consequence of the proposal to include the Greater London Urban Area population would be to then populate(!) every article info box for articles on conurbations within the Urban Area as well. Replication this 8m figure throughout so many articles would be of no value to those reading these articles, either. There is already a reference and link to the Urban Area in the article which suffices to inform the reader.Tmol42 (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- As it stands it is simply wrong the urban section in the infobox refers to urban area population not the urban subdivisions population. Eopsid (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- That might be an argument for not using the urban area field in the infobox (given that it's explained in the lead), but putting the London figure in there is unhelpful in the extreme. Kanguole 18:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think putting the urban subdivision there is just as unhelpful as it is ultimately meaningless. It refers to what? It's not the administrative town of Watford as that's covered by the Borough. It's not the Urban area because it's part of the Greater London Urban Area so it's simply meaningless. Eopsid (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly the ONS do not consider it meaningless as they designate it an urban area and a recognised subset of the Greater London Urban Area. See page 19 of see 2001 census Key Statistics for urban areas in the South East. I propose we add this as a cite and close this discussion.Tmol42 (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. There's an explanation of the meaning of Urban sub-divisions on page 3 of the same document. Kanguole 11:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- The ONS dont designate it as an Urban Area they designate it as an Urban sub-division of the Greater London Urban Area which is a completely different thing. The definition on page 3 of Urban sub-division says that the boundaries of many sub-divisions are the boundaries of local authorities before 1974 or current authorities In watford's case I would assume it's the boundary of Watford prior to 1974 (which may include the former Watford Rural District which is now mostly in Three Rivers (district)) and is now completely meaningless. As stated in the sub-division definition are used for broad comparisons so the Watford urban sub-division is not representative of Watford's urban area it's simply a way to divide up the Greater London Urban Area. Eopsid (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- They say they use local authority boundaries in some cases, and one can imagine that's the only possibility with London boroughs, but they also mention alternatives such as well defined localities or previously separate urban areas. In this case the sub-area referred to is clearly defined on this map. It represents a contiguous piece of urban land, but with less than 200m separation from other areas of urban land. Kanguole 15:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's still not a seperate urban area according to the ONS's definition but part of a larger one. So it's not a true urban area so the urban subdivision should not be in the urban section of Watford's infobox.Eopsid (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you read through the Wikiproject Geography archive you will find discussions recognising that 'Urban' does not have a standard meaning across all countries, and settlement types and that a flexible approach should be adopted on a local basis. No where could I find that one was required to relate the term Urban to Urban Area. There is no wikilink in the template under urban to urban area this has been presumably added locally for Watford. I would suggest we revert the info box 'urban pop' to its original form and make use of the optional 'urban reference' in the info box template to allow for a citation to reference the statisitc used. This provides a solution here where the use of the GLUA would have no meaning and unility for the reader. Tmol42 (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- The link Urban is done by {{infobox settlement}}, so that wasn't done locally. Kanguole 22:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- The urban subdivision is already talked about in the opening part of the article I dont think anything really would be lost if it was just not included in the infobox. Eopsid (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- The link Urban is done by {{infobox settlement}}, so that wasn't done locally. Kanguole 22:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you read through the Wikiproject Geography archive you will find discussions recognising that 'Urban' does not have a standard meaning across all countries, and settlement types and that a flexible approach should be adopted on a local basis. No where could I find that one was required to relate the term Urban to Urban Area. There is no wikilink in the template under urban to urban area this has been presumably added locally for Watford. I would suggest we revert the info box 'urban pop' to its original form and make use of the optional 'urban reference' in the info box template to allow for a citation to reference the statisitc used. This provides a solution here where the use of the GLUA would have no meaning and unility for the reader. Tmol42 (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- The ONS dont designate it as an Urban Area they designate it as an Urban sub-division of the Greater London Urban Area which is a completely different thing. The definition on page 3 of Urban sub-division says that the boundaries of many sub-divisions are the boundaries of local authorities before 1974 or current authorities In watford's case I would assume it's the boundary of Watford prior to 1974 (which may include the former Watford Rural District which is now mostly in Three Rivers (district)) and is now completely meaningless. As stated in the sub-division definition are used for broad comparisons so the Watford urban sub-division is not representative of Watford's urban area it's simply a way to divide up the Greater London Urban Area. Eopsid (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. There's an explanation of the meaning of Urban sub-divisions on page 3 of the same document. Kanguole 11:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly the ONS do not consider it meaningless as they designate it an urban area and a recognised subset of the Greater London Urban Area. See page 19 of see 2001 census Key Statistics for urban areas in the South East. I propose we add this as a cite and close this discussion.Tmol42 (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think putting the urban subdivision there is just as unhelpful as it is ultimately meaningless. It refers to what? It's not the administrative town of Watford as that's covered by the Borough. It's not the Urban area because it's part of the Greater London Urban Area so it's simply meaningless. Eopsid (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- That might be an argument for not using the urban area field in the infobox (given that it's explained in the lead), but putting the London figure in there is unhelpful in the extreme. Kanguole 18:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- As it stands it is simply wrong the urban section in the infobox refers to urban area population not the urban subdivisions population. Eopsid (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Mayor
heads up Not a big issue for Watford compared to other articles where historical sections have been deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)