Talk:Muswell Hill

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

Spurious local history[edit]

(Moved the comment below into chronological order, was misplaced at top. Signed and dated it for anon editor. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2007-04-06 Someone seems to have added some spurious local history! 82.43.209.161 18:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dearie me, they had hadn't they? And the amazing thing is that it took "the community" (who that??) over two months to notice and correct it! I am personally embarrassed - I was not editing very actively during that period but even so I must have looked at this article quite a number of times and I didn't spot it - ludicrous (but vaguely amusing) stuff about "Lord Ryan of Lincolnshire" trying to set MH up as an independent state ... sheesh! For those interested, here are the diffs: on 7th February 2007 in it goes and on 18th April 2007 off it goes again - thank you Vivbaker for being awake! :) Best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tone[edit]

Section is a little too chatty. Style needs to be tightened up and notable residents referenced. The lead for the section contains opinion. If this can be referenced to a suitable external source, fine. If it can't be referenced then it is not appropriate for wikipedia. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: it's getting into a bit of a mess. In fact the whole of the lower half of the article is in a bit of a state and we will soon need a list of lists about things in Muswell Hill ... argh. :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go at a little tidying; there's more to be done. Principally, I combined the two transport sections into one ... Kbthompson (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Hewitt[edit]

This edit adds "Isabelle Hewitt (the model and actress) lived for many years in Muswell Hill." For the time being, I am reverting it. The editor adding it (from a Haringey IP address! <smile>) might want to check the Wikipedia guidelines on notability. On a quick Google I cannot see where Isabelle Hewitt's notability is established: if she is this Isabelle then she's just 22 ... this doesn't of course mean that she's inherently non-notable, though it does perhaps make a slight mockery of "many years". If you want to add her back in you'll really need to provide some evidence of notability - please ask on this page for help if you are not sure what to do. Thanks DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily relevant at all here, but just in case it helps: I should add that if, by any chance, there was any potential here for the person adding the data to be doing so from a position or relationship too close to its subject, then it would be well worth reading the Wikipedia guidelines on conflicts of interest which contain lots of useful stuff. Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago, WP:London had a discussion as to how to deal with enormous lists of (mostly) non-notable people. It was decided then to put them in borough-wide lists like List of people from Hackney - or, if you really want to do it right - see List of people from Southwark. The latter is the kind of standard we're aiming for. Certainly the long list in this article should be referenced. Kbthompson (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plague pit revisited[edit]

I removed the plague pit / railway bit which was previously removed. The cited reference was circular: that is, it pointed to an out-of-date clone of this page. At the risk of stating the obvious, quoting Wikipedia at itself is not verifiability. If you try to Google this story I think you find nothing much that isn't the same thing - old wp info regurgitated. If a real, verifiable, credible citation could be found then great but until then I feel that this should stay out. Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive discussions[edit]

Inactive discussions - most of which were over two years old, have been moved to the archive - linked at the top of this page. Anything you want to discuss, please start over - or, go fish. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to de-Helloise article a bit[edit]

Had a go at making this read less like a teenage local Hello. Moved Claim to fame stuff to end and removed some of silliest stuff. KBT, how far can we go in pruning out the star-struck waa-waa? Cheekeong (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an excellent start, thank you. It was an appalling mess before. I say keep on cutting it, or slam it off into a separate article, or both, or whatever. We do not need in here a list of every actor and musician in this highly musician- and actor-infested suburb! :) DBaK (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howzat then - copied the Harringay page. That seems to work. Cheekeong (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I think that is brilliant - the previous situation was destroying the article. Thanks! DBaK (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts of the article still read like hello magazine, and some like an estate-agent promotion. I'll try and do what I can to tidy this up when I get a chance. Mcsony (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnet portion of Muswell Hill[edit]

Hello, I added a reference to part of Muswell Hill being in the London Borough of Barnet (the portion north of Wilton Road and Goodwyn Vale, up to the North Circular). This area is popularly considered part of Muswell Hill according to the Barnet council website (https://www.barnet.gov.uk/citizen-home/libraries/local-studies-and-archives/pocket-histories/finchley-friern-barnet-and-totteridge/south-friern-finchley-n10.html) and most addresses. Also, the article previously defined Muswell Hill as the Muswell Hill, Fortis Green, and Alexandra wards of Haringey, which is not cited and is not an official definition -- I found it problematic because this excludes the Barnet portion of Muswell Hill and includes a large chunk of N22 which is generally considered Alexandra Palace or Wood Green. I changed the population figure to match the ONS figure for the N10 post code instead. Hope these changes are ok -- very happy to discuss if anyone has any objections! Ytrepus (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very sensible. Sorry you had to wait a minute or two for a reply! DBaK (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nearest places?[edit]

The Nearest Places section seems to be a bit random - it could probably do with pruning and being made more precise. It ignores some nearer places and leapfrogs them to other more distant spots. Is there a standard on how we do this? Kbthompson, I miss you! DBaK (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and even odder, it has both Nearest Places and Nearby Places. Shurely Shome Mishtake?? DBaK (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]