Talk:Ilford

Demography

Any sources as to which Redbridge wards roughly map to Ilford? MRSC (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

North East as in the North with the East

The following was given as justification for (incorrectly) saying that Ilford is in north-east London: Mayor of London (February 2008). "North East London sub region". Greater London Authority. http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/images/maps-diagrams/jpg/map-5c-1.jpg. Retrieved 2009-08-28.

If you unthinkingly follow the above, then east London would not exist. There would be no such thing as east London. There would be nowhere that you could call east London.

The title of the Mayor's report is just a shorthand for "the area that includes parts of north-east London and also including east London as well". Or "the area that is in the east but north of the river". It may also be (as perhaps with the previous editor) an attempt to lessen the stigma of east London by trying to merge it with the more prestigeous north-east.

Imagine a compass centred at Trafalgar Square: Ilford is nearer 90 degrees than 45 degrees from north. 78.146.242.196 (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

North_East_(London_sub_region) has replaced East London as of 2008 mate Wikinpg (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

IG1 / E12

"though areas to the west of Ilford Hill and the A406 are part of E postcode area instead"

Oddly expressed. Is the author trying to say that parts of Ilford are in E12? It is ambiguous to say "areas". The E12/IG1 boundary is not exactly the same as the Redbridge / Newham boundary, but the differences are not very significant.

West of Ilford Hill is confusing as that road runs East-West. I think the author must mean the westernmost stretch of Ilford Hill.

And what is the meaning of "instead" here?

"a small area on the Western edge of Ilford, including a short stretch of Ilford Hill, is in E12" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.252.128 (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Demographics

"According to the 2001 census, Ilford North and Ilford South consisted of the following demographs"

I suggest we remove that, since it's a big stretch to imply that Ilford covers the area as large as the two constituencies which cover most of the borough of Redbridge, especially if we talk about Ilford North. MRSC, your thoughts? --John A. Collins (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ilford. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141220031101/http://data.london.gov.uk/2011-census-ward-pop to http://data.london.gov.uk/2011-census-ward-pop
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100602000714/http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/docs/londonplan08.pdf to http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/docs/londonplan08.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090823120715/http://www.crossrail.co.uk/the-railway/crossrail-maps to http://www.crossrail.co.uk/the-railway/crossrail-maps
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308090631/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/2123.aspx to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/2123.aspx

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) 09:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ilford. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001001349/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10108159&c_id=10001043 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10108159&c_id=10001043

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) 23:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent revert and edit summary

@NebY: I've seen your revert to my latest edit on the Ilford article, in which you state "we do not need to confuse the reader with the ceremonial county of London, let alone squeeze a mention of the historic county into the first sentence contrary to guidelines, and then wander further into tendentiousness by calling the county "ancient"". Ilford is in Greater London - this should be mentioned as per the guidelines. If you think the inclusion of the ceremonial county is confusing, you are more than welcome to propose changes to the guidelines at WikiProject UK Geography. You have previously accused me of misinterpreting the guidelines by including the historic county in the lead, citing the order in which elements of the lead are outlined in bullet points (although the order of the bullet points in the guidelines is not described as the order in which the lead should be structured). Ceremonial county is mentioned in the first bullet point. Guidelines state that the lead should include the historic county. The guidelines do not specify where the historic county should be mentioned within the lead. Articles about UK towns across Wikipedia mention their respective historic county where applicable, including in the first sentence. Ilford is in the historic county of Essex - the name of its current lieutenancy area/ceremonial county does not share the name of its historic county, so this should be mentioned in the lead as per the guidelines. Historic counties are also known as ancient counties and traditional counties. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)