Talk:Farringdon, London/Archive 1

Where is it?

I've put in a note about it being rather hard to say exactly where it is nowadays - unlike say Clerkenwell there is no village green and I am not aware of a parish church though I guess that would help if there were one. It's all quite tricky round there but whilst there are places where with a fair degree of certainty I can say "I'm in Clerkenwell" or even "I'm in Smithfield" I am not sure exactly where I can say the same for Farringdon. If anyone has anything to add and help define what and where it actually is, I'd be interested to read it. Nevilley 10:37, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

There is a Farringdon Street, isn't there? Maybe a map would help. --Quuxplusone 05:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no such place - there is a station and people erroneously refer to the surrounding areas as "Farringdon" - despite the fact that the surrounding areas (the City, Clerkenwell, Holborn) are well-defined areas. I propose deleting this article. --SandyDancer 20:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I think the expression "Farringdon" is used often enough by Londoners to be considered an "area" of sorts. But in modern London there really is no such place, stricly speaking. I have edited in an attempt to make this clear. --SandyDancer 20:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

But placenames like this have no strict definition and are based on usage, anyway. Morwen - Talk 08:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Farringdon is an area of Central London comprised of two wards in the City of London. I doubt this was ever true; it is a bit of a leap to directly equate a 13th Century ward to a contemporary area. Also note that after 1965 areas of London have no real boundaries aside from the City and the London boroughs. MRSC 08:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets be clear here - the two wards of Farringdon are not simply "13th century wards" - they still exist and are wards of the City. You are implying they are defunct, and they are not. The boundaries of Farringdon Within and Farringdon Without are still real administrative boundaries in use today - they elect aldermen. Google can confirm this for you. Farringdon is not an alternative name for Clerkenwell - I live there. It is nonsense to say that nowadays the two wards in the City that still bear the name somehow aren't Farringdon - what are they then? Your edits to the article run contrary to the truth in many places.

Again, to be clear - I agree that people refer to the area around modern day "Farringdon Station" (named after Farringdon STREET, which it is adjacent to) as Farringdon, and this should be mentioned. Buts its simply wrong to refer to that area as being the true "Farringdon" because it isn't.

People (lazily) refer to many areas of London according to what the nearest tube is, but that doesn't mean the practice is correct and should be used in a formal sense. In truth Farringdon Station is simply in Finsbury/Clerkenwell - it isn't in an area called Farringdon at all. --SandyDancer 15:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A number of points were raised:

1. City of London wards are not analogous to London areas. If they were we would have a district called "Tower" that did not even include the Tower of London and several areas named roads: Lime Street, Coleman Street etc. Clearly, the wards are named for one thing or another but that is all.
2. There is no implication that the Farringdon wards are "defunct".
3. Election of aldermen to the Farringdon wards does not "make" their combined area Farringdon.
4. Google or the Corporation of London website can confirm this, there is no implication otherwise.
5. There is no suggestion that Farringdon is an alternative name for Clerkenwell.
6. Where you live is irrelevant.
7. The two wards are a section of the City of London containing Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Smithfield, Blackfriars and St Bartholomew's Hospital.
8. Your edits to the article run contrary to the citations in many places.
9. There is no suggestion that there is a "true" Farringdon, but the area at the southern tip of Islington is the area most commonly referred to as Farringdon today and for some years. More significantly for the purposes of an encyclopedia, the citation from Mills confirms this and notes that Farringdon is within the London Borough of Islington.
10. Tube stations do have an impact on what people call areas, and this is compounded by the 1965 abolition of all administrative divisions in London except the City of London and the London boroughs. There are otherwise no formal boundaries between London places. Trying to define where one London area begins and another ends is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
11. Finsbury/Clerkenwell also do not exist any more than Farringdon does so this argument serves no purpose.

Hope this helps. Why not start the articles about the two wards? As you say, they have definite boundaries so it is possible to say with authority what their extent is and what they contain. MRSC 06:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

1. City of London wards are not analogous to London areas. If they were we would have a district called "Tower" that did not even include the Tower of London and several areas named roads: Lime Street, Coleman Street etc. Clearly, the wards are named for one thing or another but that is all.

• Are you suggesting an article called "Farringdon" shouldn't principally refer to two areas of the City of London called "Farringdon"? Bizarre.--SandyDancer 08:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

1. There is no implication that the Farringdon wards are "defunct".

• You referred to them as being merely "13th century wards", and said they couldn't be equated to a modern area. They can and they are.--SandyDancer 08:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Election of aldermen to the Farringdon wards does not "make" their combined area Farringdon.
2. Google or the Corporation of London website can confirm this, there is no implication otherwise.
3. There is no suggestion that Farringdon is an alternative name for Clerkenwell.

• Well this leads me to think you don't know your London geography, as unless you are saying that Farringdon is an extremely small area comprised of a couple of streets, your edits lead me to believe that you consider the bulk of Clerkenwell to be Farringdon. Have you visited the area?--SandyDancer 08:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Where you live is irrelevant.

• It would be, if I were talking to someone who knew the area properly.--SandyDancer 08:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The two wards are a section of the City of London containing Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Smithfield, Blackfriars and St Bartholomew's Hospital.

• Yes. I know.--SandyDancer 08:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Your edits to the article run contrary to the citations in many places.

• Not true as far as I can see.--SandyDancer 08:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

1. There is no suggestion that there is a "true" Farringdon, but the area at the southern tip of Islington is the area most commonly referred to as Farringdon today and for some years. More significantly for the purposes of an encyclopedia, the citation from Mills confirms this and notes that Farringdon is within the London Borough of Islington.

• Yes, the area commonly (and erroneously in my view) referred to as Farringdon, that is, the area around Farringdon station, is indeed partly within Islington LB. I don't dispute that. But are you suggesting the whole thing is within Islington? Do you realise just how close Farringdon Station is to the City border? Have you been there? If you had, you would see how foolish the argument you are making is because "your" Farringdon appears to consist merely of a Cowcross Lane, as far as I can see.--SandyDancer 08:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Tube stations do have an impact on what people call areas, and this is compounded by the 1965 abolition of all administrative divisions in London except the City of London and the London boroughs. There are otherwise no formal boundaries between London places. Trying to define where one London area begins and another ends is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

• I don't necessarily agree with that. Do you know Central London very well? If you did you'd know that although, yes, there are "grey areas", there are also lots of very well defined borders between "areas".--SandyDancer 08:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Finsbury/Clerkenwell also do not exist any more than Farringdon does so this argument serves no purpose.

• So you are saying historic and well defined areas like Finsbury and Clerkenwell don't exist because they are no longer administrative units in local government, but on the other hand it is irrelevant that there are two wards called Farringdon in the City, and that these should be largely ignored in this article?--SandyDancer 08:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• See my comments above. I will get bored and give up and let this article be completely misleading to those who don't know the area if you insist. No interest in starting a mundane article about two wards of the City though. Let me have another shot at this later. --SandyDancer 08:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits changed the meaning of the article to disagree with the citations. This is VERY bad form. Furthermore you removed a couple too. The text should not reflect personal opinion, rather evidence. I do not have a pre-conceived opinion of where Farringdon is. When I came to editing this article I collected information and evidence and used it to construct the text. It appears you have a personal point of view about what the area is. Why not bring some evidence and citations rather than make a long list of personal attacks and assertions? MRSC 08:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that i'd deleted citations. Not was I aware I'd written something which was contrary to them. Can you explain that? Please don't characterise my responses as personal attacks - they weren't intended to be such. I just think you took an arrogrant, high handed and patronising approach to editing an article you don't know much about and it rankled so I responded to your seemingly random list of points in the same tone you yourself adopted. --SandyDancer 08:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The article you have written is a mess. For example you have written "Neither of the wards in the City contain areas generally considered to be Farringdon" - totally unsourced statement of you ill-informed opinion. Likewise, "Like most districts in London it is ill-defined and has only notional boundaries". Who says? You? Do you even live in London? Have you visited? To those of us who live in central London, there are borders between historic areas - maybe not to you, or estate agents. Currently, this article simply perpetuates ignorance and misconceptions and it can't stay as it is. --SandyDancer 08:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the article using a range of citations and sources; if you feel that is arrogant then so be it. I am unsure why you think you are eligable to judge who knows what; please keep your commentary focussed on the content, not the contributors themselves. This is a basic element of civility. The article, as with all encyclopedia articles, is based of citations. As it happens I have extensive knowledge of central London, its history and in particular this area. However, I do not write purely from experience, I use it to guide my study and still rely on citations. If you feel that personal experience should be prized over credible citations then you are at odds with the values of this project. MRSC 09:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha! If that isn't arrogant and high handed, what is! Still, judging by my own tone, I am now probably guilty of the same myself - perhaps its catching. What's you've written is in parts plain wrong. I have tried to correct. Looking at your edit history (lets be honest we all do it when in dispute) I see you've had a bee in your bonnet about advocates of trad countries. Rest assured I am not one of them - I have no agenda - that may be why you are going to such lengths to constantly revert my work. What you have written just happens to be wrong. --SandyDancer 09:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not neccasarily looking to dispute what you say, but I am asking for citations, especially given I have provided some myself. It is never high handed or arrogant to demand credability. MRSC 09:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. It isn't arrogant to demand credibility (I assume you mean verifiability) and you have a point there. But writing a misleading article instead - which you did, though its better now - and reverting good faith edits of others in a high-handed fashion isarrogant. --SandyDancer 09:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel your edits to the article were in error. They presented Farringdon Within + Farringdon Without = Farringdon. There is no evidence to support this. MRSC 09:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No evidence other than that the areas are called Farringdon and have been for centuries, perhaps? Look, I accept that people have taken to referring to the area around Farringdon Station as being Farringdon, but that usage is in no way official - it is purely common use, much as people refer to the streets surrounding Oxford Circus tube as being "Oxford Circus" when in fact they mean Mayfair or Fitzrovia or Soho, or the area around Baker Street as being Baker Street when its in fact Marylebone. Your article makes out there is an ACTUAL area of London which is clearly named Farringdon, and that it categorically isn't the area which has been Farringdon for centuries! --SandyDancer 09:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Middle Temple and Inner Temple are not in Farringdon. I challenge you to find a single commentator who says they are. Political wards are not coterminous with locality as the Tower wards blatantly shows. Anyhow, despite this conflict the article is becoming quite good and well cited. MRSC 09:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that myself. Sometimes a bit of friction produces results. --SandyDancer 09:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I am now happy with the article but for one point - the info box on the side treats the area like it is entirely within Islington, which as we have agreed it isn't (it is in the City and in Islington) --SandyDancer 09:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is Mills says it is in Islington. I'm not suggesting we should blindly follow one source but it would be good if we could dig out something; otherwise were are presenting text that does not agree with the citation and I am loathed to do this (to be clear - presenting two opposing sources would be fine as it shows balance). Smithfield to my mind is an area in itslef, I wouldn't call it "Farringdon" but I'm specific about things like that. MRSC 10:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, note that the wards of the City were redrawn in 2003; I'm not sure when the last rewarding was before then, or how significantly Farringdon Without and Within changes, but the current wards need bear not much resemblance to the historic wards. Morwen - Talk 10:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Boundary changes

This area was probably affected by The City and London Borough Boundaries Order 1993. Might be worth a mention. MRSC 08:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes - that's quite a large boundary change (at least as far as the City goes). Morwen - Talk 09:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

MB Finsbury

The metropolitan borough came all the way down to the City boundary. Are you saying the area that is currently considered Farringdon entirely came originally from within the City? MRSC 10:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, before the boundary change in 1993. --SandyDancer 10:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So you consider that before 1993, no part of Farringdon was in the London Borough of Islington? On what basis? MRSC 10:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read in detail the webpage you helpfully linked to detailing the 1993 boundary changes, you'll perhaps agree. It seems Farringdon Station and the streets around it were part of Farringdon Without until then. If you can prove me wrong, fine. If not, the burden of proof lies with you so the reference to Finsbury should be removed until you can source your claim. --SandyDancer 10:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You are relying on your definition of Farringdon being only the streets immediately surrounding the station. We have already established that the area has no formal boundaries. You make a specific claim that the only area of Farringdon in Islington was the part that was transferred in 1993. Where is the source for this? MRSC 10:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

you have evidence for the assertion that Farringdon Stn and streets around were in Finsbury at any point. The sources you provide suggest it wasn't - regarding this edit summary: No claim is being made that Farringdon Stn and streets around were in Finsbury. It is merely pointing out that the area immediately north of the City was in MB Finsbury and part of that may be classed as part of Farringdon. MRSC 10:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

and part of that may be classed as part of Farringdon - NO. It couldn't be classed as Farringdon, because its Clerkenwell. The very centre of Clerkenwell for pete's sake! You are driving me mad. --SandyDancer 10:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Since when are Clerkenwell and Farringdon mutually exclusive? You are driving me mad - that is not a very nice thing to say. MRSC 11:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no source which says Hampstead isn't in Farringdon, do you suggest we say that is the case too? Look, if you go any further north than the actual back of Farringdon Station itself, up Turnmills Lane, you actually hit Clerkenwell Road and then Clerkenwell Green. Are you suggesting they are in Farringdon? Where is Clerkenwell then? Luton? I am sorry but you don't know the area very well if you think that areas which lie to the north of the station - and were therefore within the mB of Finsbury - could possibly be referred to as Farringdon - those areas are Clerkenwell, clearly. Look at a street map! Please! I implore you! --SandyDancer 10:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Other editors might respond to you better if you didn't reply with such hyperbole.

Proximity to Farringdon Station is not necessarily a prescriptive definition of what is Farringdon. Areas further north (although admittedly not much further north) around Farringdon Road (and north of Clerkenwell Road) might also come into the definition. I see no reason to prescribe boundaries based on the transfer of land in 1993 to an area that has no formal boundaries. Furthermore it is not beyond the limits of the imagination to think that some (probably very small) part of what is today considered Farringdon was in the MB of Finsbury. MRSC 10:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

How about this as a new section:

The exact boundaries of the area commonly referred to as Farringdon cannot be exactly defined as it has never formed a parish or borough; close proximity to Farringdon Station is assumed, although anywhere in the whole world may be in Farringdon because SandyDancer can't provide a weblink which says otherwise.--SandyDancer 10:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That would come under my comment about hyperbole. MRSC 10:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Its very frustrating dealing with you now.

You seem to have this idea in your head that Farringdon can mean anywhere that is near either Farringdon Station or Farringdon Road. That isn't true and I can't see why you'd think that - I can assure you as a resident of the area that no-one would agree with you. People do not consider areas which are clearly at the centre of other well-defined areas, like Clerkenwell, AND which already have a strong identity and therefore wouldn't be described by the term "Farringdon", AND that aren't even very close to the station, as being "Farringdon". I can say that with absolute certainty.

Now no doubt you will want to come back and say "why don't you provide a source for that". Why should I have to? You are the one making off the wall assertions now, and you aren't providing any sources. It is very difficult to find a source which backs up what I am saying, because its more or less just common sense.

You seem to think the burden of proof is on me to disprove clearly inaccurate statements you want to add to the article. That is again evidence of the high-handedness and arrogance you are adopting here, which was amply displayed in your earlier comment that I shouldn't even be involved in Wikipedia because I don't agree with you. --SandyDancer 13:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not think anyone has a "burden of proof". However, when I came to editing the article I thought, based on maps and personal experience, that the area was part City and part Islington. The Oxford Dictionary of London Place Names says it is just in Islington. As this is an encyclopedia I am minded to follow the published text over my personal opinion. Where I have asked you to provide sources it is not as some sort of barrier to your opinion, it is because it would add value to the article and also because I would be genuinely interested to see it. MRSC 13:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

This edit reverts numerous other changes to the one the edit summary disagrees with. Can we please edit/discuss this a little more amicably? MRSC 12:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For now at least, can you drop the attempts to assert that half of north-east central London is referred to by people as "Farringdon", and leave it as "vaguely defined"? We were getting somewhere earlier, now you have gone off on one again. Make whatever edits you want but please just drop that point. Then we can discuss. There's no point otherwise. --SandyDancer 13:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And what's this bit about "political wards" you have tried to insert? You seem to have a very odd agenda - is it that you have an issue with historic placenames or something? Looking at the other activities you have been involved in on Wikipedia, that's what I am beginning to think. Its really strange. --SandyDancer 13:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no agenda other than presenting things accurately, and using credible citations. It is you who has a preconceived idea of what Farringdon is and will accept nothing else. Your last comments, based on other contributions I have made, are obscure and form a vague personal attack. MRSC 13:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

But you aren't providing credible citations either!! Where does you assertion that Farringdon = anywhere near Farringdon Road come from? You are being such a hypocrite. Don't try and scare me off with all this personal attack wording, if you can't back up what you are saying then maybe you are in the wrong place. You approached this all wrong - you set the tone, not me. --SandyDancer 13:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Farringdon as a place name = Farringdon Station, not an area thereabouts

I quote from Mills, A., Oxford Dictionary of London Place Names, (2000): "Farringdon, Islington. Station named from Farringdon Road which was constructed in 1845-6, this being a continuation of Farringdon Street in the City which was built over the Fleet river in 1737. All preserve the name Farringdon, one of the ancient wards in the City, which was so called from two of its alderman in the early 13th Century, William and Nicholas de Faringdon." MRSC 13:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on that, is proximity to Farringdon Road being an indicator of Farringdon locality such an assertion? MRSC 13:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It is. That doesn't support what you are saying at all - read it again. You have just shown that your dictionary of place names says what I was saying ages ago on this talk page - that Farringdon as a place name refers to the STATION, and is not an "area". So on the basis of your source, the article needs to be merged into Farringdon Station. --SandyDancer 14:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The area can't be defined because it doesn't exist. It is just an expression people use to refer to a the streets around the station, which are actually in Clerkenwell/the City--SandyDancer 15:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't get that from the text, especially as it about placenames. It is just telling us the origin. Why does it begin Farringdon, Islington? If it were disputing the existance of the area it would begin Farringdon Station, Islington or somesuch. Given all of the above, calling for a merge seems like and attempt to prove a point. In any case, it will be good to get a more varied range of perspectives. MRSC 15:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Initially SandyDancer states that Farrindon = Farringdon Within + Farringdon Without and any other application of the name is in error [1] This is clearly nonsense as the Inns of Court are not in Farringdon. Furthermore, wards are not geographical areas. Morwen rightly points out they are reformed from time to time, the last time in 2003. London localities are far more fluid and overlap; any formal boundaries were abolished in 1965.

He then goes on to prescribe tight limits as to what the area can be. For some reason this is limited to areas within the City and the area transferred from the City in 1993. He also asserts that Clerkenwell and Farringdon are mutually exclusive. [2] I would contend the areas overlap and that at least some small part of what was Finsbury MB is classed as Farringdon by at least some people (an example: [3] I'm based at the Mount Pleasant sorting office in Farringdon, where the station is about 70 feet below ground) (Because you can find examples of a misconception does not make the misconception correct. I agree we should reference in the Farringdon Station article that some people refer to the area around the station as Farringdon, and that "Farringdon" should remain as a redirect to that article --SandyDancer 20:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

His argument finally changes to the idea that as Farringdon is not a "real" place and only an "incorrect" designation given to the area because of the existence of the station. It does not exist, should not have an article and should only be mentioned as an aside on the station article. If we take this position how many other London locality articles need to become footnotes of the relavant tube stations because they were not ancient parishes or boroughs? (Name one such article. I bet you can't. This article seems to be a singular mistake. --SandyDancer 20:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

I feel that SandyDancer, as a local, [4] has a strong POV around the use of the locality Farringdon (preferring Clerkenwell [5]) and this is clouding his perspective on this subject. MRSC 17:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat ad hominen. Let people make their own minds up. For what its worth I think you have just got the bit between your teeth now and want to "win" at all costs, even if it means inaccuracies appearing on Wikipedia.

You are avoiding the point - that the source you quoted from says that Farringdon as a place name = Farringdon Station, not an area of London surrounding it. A railway station is a place. It is 100% unambiguous.

I admit I have a POV here. There is nothing wrong with having a POV and arguing for it if one genuinely believes, and can establish one is correct. You also have a POV - and you are misusing sources and adopting some wierd principle of "I am right and can post what I like unless you produce sources to disprove it", without actually supporting your own assertions. Wierd. --SandyDancer 18:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What are these edits all about. The article is changed to be primarily about a station when clearly there is an informal area. This is highly disruptive. MRSC 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Clearly there is an informal area" - says who? You? Again, you seem to be adopting the approach that what you say is always correct and doesn't need verifying... You have behaved with fairly bad grace since I pointed out to you that one of your own sources pointed to the fact that Farringdon, as a place name, means Farringdon Station.

• You have provided no evidence of an "informal area". Please do so.
• What exactly is an "informal area" anyway?
• Is the fact that some people loosely refer to the area around a train station by the name of that station worthy of an article on Wikipedia? If so, we may as well create an article for every other tube and railway station in London because the same approach is taken by some people for those too. For example, I have a friend in Southwark who describes where she lives as being "London Bridge". But there is no article for the "informal area" of London Bridge --SandyDancer 21:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No. That is your interpretation. The source shows that the area known as Farringdon in Islington is named from the station, the station is named from Farringon Street, Farringdon Street from the Farringdon ward, the ward from two guys in the 13th Century and orginally from one of several villages. Your edits now, in particular to change the locality name in the infobox to "Farringdon Station" based on "lack of sources" is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Even you concede Farringdon is an area of London, no matter how informal. MRSC 21:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your interpretation is clearly incorrect, sorry. Just read the source again: Farringdon, Islington. Station named from Farringdon Road which was constructed in 1845-6. The entry in the dictionary is for a STATION. How much clearer does it need to be? It is unambiguous. It is referring to the railway station, not to a "informal area" which seems to be increasingly a figment of your imagination that you won't let go.

I don't agree there is an area of London called Farringdon (other than the wards in the City, of course). I have heard people refer to places near Farringdon station as being in "Farringdon", but then I have heard people refer to places next to London Bridge as being in "London Bridge", and areas near to Baker Street as being "in Baker Street", etc etc etc. Its a common practice and doesn't imply an actual area exists.

I am still waiting for you to provide evidence there is an actual area called Farringdon. --SandyDancer 21:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the subject by any stretch of the imagination, but for what it's worth I tend to agree with SandyDancer's last point - people do indeed refer to places near Farringdon station as being in "Farringdon", but this is in the same manner as London Bridge etc. I guess the real question is whether informal usage qualifies as justifying an article. From what I can see of the Farringdon article at the moment, it is 90% about the station, which suggests that it serves no real purpose and should be merged. However, it could follow an Oxford Circus vs. Oxford Circus tube station model that successfully uses both. DJR (T) 12:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done a quick search and found a lot of businesses giving Farringdon, London as there location as well as a few places actually addressed to Farringdon, London. Does this help with anything? Simply south 12:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you give examples?

I would still make the point that whether or not there is considered by some to be an "informal area", I don't think such an informal area should warrant an article and the content should be merged into Farringdon station with a redirect. The article as it was before I edited it suggested there is an actual real area which isn't the case - you won't find the "Farringdon" being discussed on a map, nor is it recognised by officialdom in anyway. What we appear to be talking about is simply a short hand way of describing location based on proximity to a well-know train or tube station - common practice in London, but that doesn't mean an actual area exists. --SandyDancer 12:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems to presuppose that 'actual area' is some sort of externally existing concept, outside continued usage. Place names are human cultural artefacts, and they have differing levels of establishment or history; but where do you draw the border to say 'actual'? Pretty obviously a place called Oxford Circus exists, and this is where the Oxford Circus tube station is. People apparently assumed that since Farringdon tube station existed, it must be in Farringdon : Faringdon appears to be a back formation. Morwen - Talk 12:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting and a good point - I hadn't heard the expression "back-formation" here and it appears to fit the bill.

An important issue here is that Farringdon Station sits in an area with a very strong identity - Clerkenwell - and for every person who would refer to the area by the station "Farringdon", there are far more who would refer to the area by its actual name - Clerkenwell. Also, although I can't prove this, as someone who lives a few streets away I would assert that I do not think people refer to anywere other than the exact location of the station, the street in front of it, and Cowcross Lane (which is short but rammed with bars, restaurants and businesses) as "Farringdon". No-one would say Clerkenwell (!) Green or Clerkenwell (!) Road or Britton Street was "Farringdon". So the earlier attempts to effectively define Farringdon as anywhere in the vicinity of Farringdon Road (which entends well to the north and south) were incredibly far off the mark.

I think the point here is that usage of the term to describe a very small area which is actually in Clerkenwell doesn't warrant a page on here. There are countless examples of back-formations like this in London which are used far, far more frequently than this that don't have pages --SandyDancer 13:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

well, the BBC did. It may be that Farringdon is supplanting Clerkenwell in common usage. You can oppose that or not, or lament it, but that's rather irrelevant to the article: usage matters. How many people actually live in Clerkenwell as opposed to work there? I rather suspect it's primarily a non-residential area. Morwen - Talk 14:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That isn't true. A major indicator is how much you see the name around - shops, businesses, pubs, bars, restaurants, etc. use Clerkenwell in their name but not Farringdon. In fact there was a move from the council to rename Farringdon Station "Farringdon and Clerkenwell" recently, though (rightly) it didn't get anywhere. I don't think discussing obviously untrue statements like that will get us anywhere though. Farringdon is used in reference to places immediately adjacent to the station, for example I have heard people refer to Turnmills as being in "Farringdon", and the strip of bars and restaurants on Cowcross Lane is sometimes referred to as "Farringdon", but that is about it. Remember that in many parts of Clerkenwell, Farringdon isn't even the nearest tube station (some parts are closer to Angel tube, or even King's Cross Thameslink). --SandyDancer 15:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, Clerkenwell is increasingly residential, and always has had a primarily residential character anyway. Again, I speak as someone who lives there. Though I gather on here that doesn't really count for anything, what counts is selectively quoting the results of Google searches ... --SandyDancer 15:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

is there really any need to accuse me of "selectively quoting the results of Google searches" as if i was doing something underhand by finding a counter-example to your statement that nobody would ever do such a silly thing? i suggested a possibility. i have at no point said any definition was right - if anything i reject this notion that there is a "right" and "wrong" definition, as noted below. Morwen - Talk 15:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry I didn't mean to attack you! I just don't think its helpful to make such wild speculation. Its just that I feel I am the one being attacked, by Mrsteviec, who asserts that my arguments are ridiculous and his are correct even though his own edits to the article contradicted the (admittedly very helpful) sources he provided, yet he accused me of doing so. Again, sorry. --SandyDancer 15:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for bursting in on this private argument! Have you considered that in some sense both arguments are right, and that it's really to do with the twisted and convoluted geography we call London that you can't identify the area with any certainty?

The information I've found, is that the Farringdon Wards were named after a certain 'Faringdon' who purchased the aldermanship in 1281 (previously known as the Ward of Anketill de Auvergne). 'Within' and 'without' had an existence, and were mentioned in the Old Bailey proceedings. 'Faringdon' has suffered geographically. It isn't marked on the Greenwood 1827 maps; or Rocque 1746. It was hemmed in by religious houses to the south-west, the inns of courts and Smithfield to the south, and Clerkenwell to the north. Farringdon Rd, itself only comes into existence with the covering of the River Fleet. The construction of that, Clerkenwell Rd and THEN the metropolitan railway swept away the slums around Turnmill St - which were important, as in Tudor London, the area contained some of the first recorded black residents (and some notorious brothels) on the drover trail to the market. Perversely, one of those residents was known as the 'Abbess of Clerkenwell', so the Clerkenwell argument has some historical side to it. If Farringdon ever did have a distinct identity, it seems long ago to have been subsumed by its extra-mural neighbour. There was a Farringdon Market mentioned in Mayhew, London Labour and the London Poor Vol.1 (1851), this seems to have been swept away by the railway and surrounding street changes. I would suggest that Farringdon has a historical identity (it's a remnant, rather than back formation, and that it should be mentioned under a 'Farringdon City of London Ward article' and that there should be a 'Farringdon Railway Station' article, in the same way it's applied in the rest of the London Wiki articles - but I think it's more important to obtain some compromise in this argument. Kbthompson 15:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

if it's a private argument, i'm butting in too apparently - and getting attacked for it. Morwen - Talk 15:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, sorry Morwen, not my intention. --SandyDancer 15:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Butt away ... Edits fly so fast and furious, it is difficult to get a word in without an edit conflict. I think people should just give it time, and return to it in a calmer frame of mind. I to am a local, and I always grew up thinking that the area in Tower Hamlets known as 'Gardiners Corner' (long gone), was 'Aldgate. Looking at Wiki, Aldgate gets given in its entirety to the city. So, you can never win with these arguments. I'd just like to see people find some form of words they can agree on, and move on ... life is too short. Kbthompson 15:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what Kbthompson says.

My proposal is that the Farringdon article be merged into Farringdon Station (with a redirect set up). The Farringdon Station article can then reference the fact that sometimes a "back formation" is used to describe the immediate area it is in, even though in fact this area is just the south-west part of Clerkenwell. That is the compromise.

Asserting that this back formation has taken on the status of an "informal area" and therefore deserves an article of its own doesn't work because:

• verifiability - the claim that an "informal area" exists is not verifiable:

• We cannot define what an informal area is.
• The 2000 Mills Dictionary of London Placenames does not include Farringdon as an area, just as a station.
• "Farringdon" does not appear on any map, other as a railway station and as two Wards of the City of London. This is because there is and never has been a parish, borough, ward or any other admin. unit or georgraphical area other than the Farringdon Ward and its two successors in London.

• conflict with other pages - there is, and has been for many centuries, a Farringdon that is a real London area, now represented by two City wards [[Farringdon Within] and Farringdon Without, formerly represented in the dim and distant past by one single Farringdon ward.
• notability - there are many examples of such based on names of stations across London and none of those have articles (e.g. London Bridge, Waterloo) because we aren't really talking about "areas" - we are talking about a figure of speech based on geographical landmarks (in this case stations).

Sorry to anyone I've offended in making this argument, I will give it a rest now. I hope the general tone and/or wounded pride won't stop anyone reading this with an open mind. --SandyDancer 15:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, whilst I can read that Placenames dictionary that way, I can also read it the other way. It is unclear. Further sources would be useful. I don't think that the assertion that there is a "real Farringdon" different to the station; and the contention we redirect this article to Farringdon station; are compatible. But electoral wards are not an infallible indication of geography, as an inspection of the ward maps of any borough in the country will reveal. Morwen - Talk 16:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that ward names are infallible. I was making the point that an area in London called Farringdon has existed for centuries, and the area that Mrsteviec asserts is Farringdon ain't it. Indeed at one point one of his edits asserted (without quoting any source) that the area are mutually exclusive.

And, although it isn't worth arguing over, I cannot see you could possibly argue "Farringdon, Islington. Station named from Farringdon Road which was constructed in 1845-6" isn't clearly referring to a station because that's what it says. No room for doubt. I can't understand why you would say there is? --SandyDancer 21:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It can easily be read explaining the etymology of the place name (which comes as a backformation from a station, which it notes, then noting the etymology of the station name). These things are often written in shorthand. An entry about Nag's Head might read "Nag's Head, Islington. Pub named after [whatever]". (Morwen (?) Unsigned)

With the greatest of respect and without wishing to be combative, I just don't find that convincing. Its umambiguous. The defintion is about a station. It says "Farringdon, Islington. Station". --SandyDancer 21:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You say "I don't think that the assertion that there is a "real Farringdon" different to the station; and the contention we redirect this article to Farringdon station; are compatible". Fine. Neither do I. That wasn't the totality of my argument. Indeed it is a misinterpretation of it. --SandyDancer 16:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It indeed wasn't the entirety of the argument. however, I think that the first point I identify precludes point the second point I identify - if there is a real farringdon-as-an-area-which-constitutes-two-wards, then logically we should have at the very least a disambiguation page pointing to the wards. i would be interested in research as to what extent wards of the city of london were actually used as placenames. you are both entirely convinced you are right and are reading sources in accordance with that. Morwen - Talk 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I hate these tabs going all the way across a 90 inch monitor! OK, Walter Thornbury, Old and New London describes both the boundaries of the respective wards, and the location of the Market. The market was named for the street. So, 1829 is the earliest reference to Farringdon as an area, distinct from the wards. Make of that what you will. Kbthompson 17:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am going against the merger but for an entirely different reason than whether Farringdon is an area of London or not. I have actually found that there is a village in Hampshire called Farringdon. Simply south 17:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And indeed, Farringdon, Hampshire is about it. Or will be. Morwen - Talk 18:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, wouldn't it make more sense (given the guidelines of WP:DAB) to make Farringdon a DAB page rather than a redirect to the station? DJR (T) 23:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure Mrsteviec's decision to go ahead and completely edit the article to fit his point of view on the topic without first discussing here is particularly helpful here.

I appreciate there is a difference of opinion, but I'd like to point out that the central premise on which he has based his rewriting of the article is in my view incorrect, and in any event it puts forward several propositions that simply aren't backed by the sources quoted.

Whilst I except that my stating that I live in the area and therefore I have some special knowledge is not sufficient for my view to be accepted without full verification, I don't see why Mrsteviec's view - which is based on his lack of knowledge and likewise is unsourced is untrue.

And before anyone says "but look, he has included sources": yes, but they don't back up the assertions he is making in the article.

There is no justification for an article about the tendency some people have to refer to the area around Farringdon Station as "Farringdon". There certainly shouldn't be one which states that this represents a "real" area. --SandyDancer 11:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

MRSC may well be better off discussing changes before making them, and perhaps should reconsider on what basis his edits have more legitimacy that those of other users (WP:OWN perhaps?). However, Wikipedia is generally an expansionary project - it is not restricted by paper - and it therefore makes sense for an article to remain in place, purely because of numerous precedents to the same. In the grand scheme of things, it does not make that much difference - although I do feel that its article name gives it a sense of legitimacy that is perhaps unwarranted. I am going to suggest moving the page - see below. DJR (T) 12:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions

1. "Farringdon is a locality in Central London, England." Do you have a source for this central premise, other than casual usage which falls into the same category as people describing things around London Bridge as being at or in London Bridge? If not, why have you constructed an article around this premise? If you want to see lots of examples of such usages across London, have a poke around this website, "beerintheevening.com" [6] - a directory of London pubs. Here are some examples: for Bond Street [7], London Bridge [8], Cannon Street [9], Liverpool Street [10] and indeed for Farringdon [11]. You wouldn't contend that these rail/tube station names are areas, would you? If so, you will be very busy creating articles over the next few days.

2. Why are Fitzrovia and Belgravia used as examples here? These place names, while not administrative areas, appear on maps of London (I am looking at the A&Z - both appear). "Farringdon", as a word to describe the area around Farringdon Station, does not appear on any map of London. Online mapping services like Streetmap.co.uk produce the same result. Belgravia and Fitzrovia moreover describe parts of London without another identity, whereas Farringdon Station is simply in Clerkenwell. Moreover Farringdon is a pre-existing place name itself - for a different area that still exists. There are very important differences here that you are ignoring. The analogies are false. A better one would be the tendency some people have to refer to the area around London Bridge as "London Bridge", which rightly doesn't have an article because "London Bridge" is not an area.

3. Why have you used the source numbered as 1 as if it supports your contention that the area around the Station is "Farringdon"? It does not such thing. Yes, it shows the Station is at the extreme south of Islington, but in reality this is just another example of a London map which doesn't identify an area called "Farringdon" around the station of the same name.

4. Source 3 states at one point "As winter draws near, the Farringdon cressmarket begins long before daylight. On your way to the City to see this strange sight, the streets are deserted". So the market in question was in the City - in the actual Farringdon area. Indeed Farringdon Street is in the historical area of Farringdon (it is Farringdon Road which lies to the north, and presumably is so named because it leads to Farringdon, not because it is in Farringdon - just like the hundreds of "London Roads" you will find all over the south east of England).

With respect yoour rewrite doesn't do anything - it doesn't establish the validity of your claims. None of the sources you have serve to settle the issue at stake between us - they just demonstrate things we agree on (that Farringdon Stn is in Islington but before 1993 was in the city, that there are two wards called Farringdon in the City, the etymology fo the name...). The asserion you are making that divides us is still just that an assertion, not backed by any source. --SandyDancer 11:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I don't think the situation is so contentious as to loose sleep over it. I think, a 'potential district' called Farringdon is a remnant of the time that there was a market here. If there ever was a historic Farringdon, it seems to have been centred on the area where the station and railway line were subsequently built, thus sweeping away any evidence for a true 'historic centre'. The area itself was important for a number of historical reasons, and I'll try to deal with some of that under the 'within' and 'without' articles. Most station articles only contain information about the construction and use of the station, not the area around them; so, Mrsteviec's view of not merging has some merit - but then so do your arguments. Why not just agree to disagree? I think the evidence (I've seen) underdetermines the theories in this case, and it can be interpreted either way. Leaving the article with a note that it may be a back-formation from the station does provide the reader with a sense that its independent existence is contentious. I don't think it is Wiki-wrong to err on the side of expansiveness. I do think the continuation of this argument should wait until the end of the pantomime season (oh no it's not) ... A little time and reflection would allow everyone to approach the subject with fresh eyes. Kbthompson 11:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

move. —Mets501 (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

move page

• Farringdon → Farringdon, London
• Farringdon (disambiguation) → Farringdon

Given the existence of several other "Farringdon" articles, combined with the contentious nature of this particular article, I would suggest moving this page to Farringdon, London, and have Farringdon (disambiguation) moved here. Not only will it help guide users in the right direction in terms of which "Farringdon" they are looking for, but it will enable a greater degree of explanation and qualification of the terms. Furthermore, WP:DAB is quite clear about what should be done in situation with multiple names such as these, and I think it would be best to follow process. DJR (T) 12:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

• Support - as nom. DJR (T) 12:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Often referred to as Farringdon, London Simply south 13:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly ambiguous. older ≠ wiser 16:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I accept that a move to Farringdon area, London would create an article with an anomalous title. I do think that Farringdon should be a DAB page because there is simply no basis for saying that the current describes the most common use of the term - the station is probably the most common, and although an imperfect tool I note that a google search for "Farringdon" actually suggests the [12] there is no clear picture, but that Farringdon area is certainly not the most common use. --SandyDancer 11:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - see my latest comment below Kbthompson 09:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Having thought about it for some time, I think the primary meaning is already occupying this article and should remain there. MRSC • Talk 06:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• I actually moved it to the pagename suggested, but then reverted it because I wasn't sure there was a consensus yet SunStar Net 22:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'm still not sure about the move. I can see the merits of both sides. However, the move I presume is on the basis that Farringdon, London is not the primary use of Farringdon? I'm unsure if this is the case. Of course I'm biased being in London. Does anyone known how significant the other settlements are? MRSC 05:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree it would be fair to say that "Farringdon" generally refers to a London entity. The reason for a DAB page, however, is that there are four articles about London entities called "Farringdon". Moving the DAB page here will enable more enlightened users such as yourself to clarify - in simple terms - what the difference actually is between each entity (obviously the station one is pretty obvious, but still should be DABed) for those of us who are not in a position to make head nor tail of it all. DJR (T) 11:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I've now looked in a lot of primary sources. I'm still confused by it all, and would prefer to see a disambiguation come about once there is some broad agreement on what we're talking about; and at least some compromise between the two protagonists in this discussion. I would accept that there was an area known as Farringdon, around the market that existed here (I still haven't found its exact location on a map); and that this became applied to the area around the station - whether by historical association, or by back-formation. There is geo-graphic confusion - in the space of a hundred years, a river was covered over, markets were born and removed, road widening occurred, and the railway driven through the area. In one source, something like 2500 dwellings were swept away. I have no problem with keeping the page, and I guess that would mean going for disambiguation. Something that gives the reader the notion that the very existence of a separate area is contested is probably being approached ... Kbthompson 16:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Something says a lot is what you get when you google "Farringdon" - [13]. Take a look and judge for yourself - there is no mention of a London area called Farringdon. Just mentions of the villages in Hampshire and Devon and the tube/railway station. --SandyDancer 16:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If google knew everything, I guess we wouldn't need books and university resources ... but they don't and we do ... Kbthompson 17:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • From my point of view, I am largely a neutral spectator as this particular area of London is not in my field of expertise. However, as a Wikipedia user, I do not think people who type in "Farringdon" should be presented with this article as the kingpin article - the most common usage of "Farringdon" refers (in my experience anyway) to the station, not the area. The concept of "the area" itself is ambiguous for the very reasons described by Kbthompson, and on top of ambiguity within London comes the existence of 'Farringdon's across the country. It seems to me that this kind of scenario was exactly what DAB pages were made for! DJR (T) 18:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely this should not be the "Farringdon" page - just to be clear, my link to this google search [14] for "Farringdon" was to demonstrate the point that, even if there is an "area" of Farringdon distinct from the city wards, it is not the most common use of the place name "Farringdon". My suggestion is that "Farringdon" should be a DAB page, irrespective of whether there is also an article attributed to the fact that places around Farringdon station are referred to as being "in Farringdon". Anyone else agree? --SandyDancer 16:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Unless I am much mistaken, that is exactly what is being proposed here - perhaps you could add your name in support. I would also ask that you do not change the proposed destination page in the template at the top of the page while a debate is going on - it confuses the issue and changes the debate. DJR (T) 18:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I don't support the proposal to move to Farringdon, London because the "Farringdon" we are referring to is not the only one in London. I think Farringdon area, London works much better. --SandyDancer 18:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I fail to see how "Farringdon area" is any better than "Farringdon" under the terms of your argument. DJR (T) 20:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Because there are four Farringdons in London - a station, Farringdon Within ward, Farringdon Without ward and the Farringdon area. So best to be specific about the one we mean. --SandyDancer 22:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The existence of four separate entities is the reason for the disambiguation page, but saying "the Farringdon area" is surely no better than saying "Farringdon, London". Common sense (and Wikipedia conventions) suggest that something called, "Name", "Locale" is always an "area". To state "area" in parenthesis is surely a) stating the obvious; and more importantly b) further confusing the issue by suggesting that this "area" is different in some way to many other equivalent "areas" across London. DJR (T) 12:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Many of the Farringdon entities are in London; creating a page that says Farringdon, London is a side issue to whether there is an entity called simply 'Farringdon'. The current disambiguation provides links to other Farringdons outside London, and the instances within London are all specifically linked in the article. I believe, that is the usual Wiki style for places in London (someone will correct me).

Further, I do agree that there needs to be evidence for the scope and extant of Farringdon, and I do agree that we remain light on evidence for it - although I am inclined to accept its existence (I would go so far as to say a formal one, but I accept that statement needs to be evidenced - there's just too many references to it, through a wide area - not just around the station)

Anyway, that's my current POV, for what it's worth, despite the many eloquent arguments the other way. Kbthompson 09:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. But there are two whole villages in the south of England and other instances elsewhere in the country. Farringdon isn't in any way a London-specific placename. --SandyDancer 11:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I think it is fair to say that the primary use of "Farringdon" refers to a place in London. However, I would question whether this page constitutes its primary meaning - with relation to the earlier merge proposals, I would tend to think that the primary use of Farringdon refers to the station, not the area. DJR (T) 12:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment

Originally known as the Ward of Anketill de Auvergne, Farringdon was named for Sir Nicholas Farindon, who was appointed Lord Mayor for as long as it shall please him by Edward II. The ward had been in the Farindon family for 82 years at this time, his father, William Farindon preceding him as alderman in 1281, when he purchased the position. The father was Lord Mayor in 1281-2 and also warden of the Goldsmiths. During the reign of Edward I, as an alderman and Goldsmith, William Farindon was implicated in the arrest of English Jewry (some, fellow goldsmiths) for treason.

The name Farringdon was adopted by a wide area of the city in 1308. The specific ward, associated with the name, was divided in 1394. I would suspect, but still cannot prove that that name was also adopted by the PO for the EC1 postal district. Why else would establishments from Leather Lane, Exmouth Market, and around Smithfield describe themselves as being in Farringdon? I know I wrote the above extract, but it contains all the historical evidence I could find about the place.

So, to recap Farringdon Street was named for the historic district, Farringdon Market, then the station after that, and Farringdon Road following. As I said there were major changes to the very geography of London. This is the source of our confusion, that and the modern city requiring a different granularity of place names. In any case, I've not seen any evidence for the villages having an earlier foundation, or equal importance to the name's use in London. There may be an argument for explicitly saying that the district is now more usually associated with the area immediately around the station, but what you're proposing is to excise an ancient district of the city from the map. These things change over time, I certainly accept that, but whatever we do here needs to reflect 2000 years of history, not just a few bars. Again, that's just my POV, I accept that others' mileage may well differ. Kbthompson 13:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well personally I think you make good points, much in line with what I have been saying all along. If you look at this old edit by Mrsteviec [15], you will see that was when the article began to refer to Farringdon as being the area around the station, with historic Farringdon pushed to one side. My edit here [16], although not producing a particularly comprehensive article I accept, represented the correct viewpoint as I saw it then and, to a large extent, now.

The idea that an article entitled Farringdon or indeed Farringdon, London concentrates on the vicinity of the station as being the "correct" use seems wrong to me and always has.

This article should say Farringdon is an historic area of London - its boundaries have shifted over time but it is still exists in the form of two wards of the City - some streets and a station were named after it. Some reference can be made to the undoubted fact that the name "Farringdon" is used by people to refer to the parts of Clerkenwell that surround the station, notwithstanding the fact that the station is not in fact in Farringdon proper. --SandyDancer 14:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this somewhat complex structure moves towards something I can live with; it may be that a PO area may need to be added if I can find any evidence for it - although, since that means popping into the British Library - you may have to wait for that one! There's still the substantive motion under consideration - which is to nix this page, in favour of a disambiguation. Anyone want to change their vote? One other minor quibble, thats the article says 'purchased the area'; I thought they owned land here, but had purchased the position? I may be mistaken. Kbthompson

I am still in favour of this page moving to Farringdon, London. There are three whole villages in the UK, and a part of Sunderland, with the name so I think it makes sense. --SandyDancer 15:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• I totally agree with both Kbthompson and SandyDancer - this article is about an area that has a definite history that should be clearly described. This being the case, however, does not stymie that the area "Farringdon" area cannot, IMHO, claim to be the primary usage of "Farringdon". WP:DAB states that primary meaning pages should be used based on the following:

When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.

Even though the vast majority of the old links to Farringdon have been corrected to Farringdon railway station, the fact that there continue to be a significant number (especially in comparison to the number relevant to the area) invalidates criterion (i). On top of this, I think at least a couple of us agree that Farringdon station would "be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings", which invalidates criterion (ii). I think the fact that this debate is even taking place is probably enough to justify a disambiguation page under the guidelines of WP:DAB, but then that's a fairly biased opinion. However, I strongly believe that Farringdon should be a disambiguation page - regardless of where the current article ends up. DJR (T) 16:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Boundary

The business of the City/Islington boundaries is very interesting. I have found a very detailed (parish level) map of c1600 which shows the Farringdon area far north of the City boundary. More interestingly the development plans of the Corporation and Islington in the 70s and 80s have high detail maps which show the station and surrounding streets as part of Islington (but with different boundaries to now). I would suggest there has been another transfer of land at some point. I did a quick search on LexisNexis for a possible SI but couldn't find one. I will do a more detailed search when I have some time, unless someone knows more about the boundary here? MRSC 13:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A visit to the site today reveals all the streets in the block around the station have "Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury" signs (see image in article). This, coupled with the 70s/80s development plans would suggest the 1993 order was a reversal of some kind. MRSC 15:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The map on VOB also shows Finsbury extending down to include the station and Cowcross Street. I'm starting to wonder if the 1993 order really did move the station from City to Islington. It is looking increasingly less likely (unless it was a reversal of something). MRSC 16:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

On closer inspection the SI only made a minor realignment in this area: the small section south of Cowcross Street and north of Charterhouse Street (a little triangle) was transferred. Farrindon station has never been in the City of London. This matches up with the Finsbury street signs and the development plans of the Corporation and Islington LBC. I shall amend the text accordingly. MRSC 17:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

So, does it exist?

Am I right in thinking SandyDancer is the only one who thinks Farringdon does not exist as a locality and should not have its own article, or does anyone else share this view? MRSC 18:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that "Farringdon" exists as an area? You can't point to any map of London that it appears on. The dictionary of London place names you cited says Farringdon is a station in Islington, not an area in itself.

You can't cite any source that says that Farringdon is an area - all you can do is point to a few informal descriptions of things that are near the station as being "X, Farringdon" or "X, in Farringdon". I have already made the point that this practice is common in London - see above and note in particular the very similar tendency to refer to places in Southwark that are very close to London Bridge station as being "in London Bridge". I think it is very notable you have never even attempted to address this point.

Why therefore are you making an assumption you are right and rewriting an entire article on the basis of this view you hold, and refusing to engage with any of my central points or queries?

Can you point me to any other article on Wikipedia about London areas that are built on such shaky foundations as this one? --SandyDancer 16:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So that would be nobody then. Just to be clear, does anyone else share the view that the Farringdon area does not exist, and should not have an article? 05:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mount Pleasant sorting office picture

This caption of this picture is highly misleading. Mount Pleasant sorting office is not in the area commonly referred to as Farringdon - it is in Mount Pleasant, or Clerkenwell. Now in the article there is a link to a BBC interview with a former worker there who refers to the office as being in "Farringdon" presumably because it is on Farringdon Road. This source doesn't prove the contention. Here is a source which says it is in "Mount Pleasant" - [17], and here's one that says its in Clerkenwell [18]. Using Google you will find many more.

I think this is just one demonstration of the fact this article has been constructed on the basis of circumstantial evidence but no actual real definitive sources, to establish there is a sizable "informal" area in around Farringdon station referred to as "Farringdon" that extends beyond the immediate vicinity of the station. I contend that there aren't any direct sources for this because it isn't really the case. But my contentions have been overriden and ignored.

This article is now built on some very shaky propositions - it all appears to be sourced but when you look more carefully it doesn't really fit together. This article misleads the reader through use of selective sources --SandyDancer 16:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The photo gallery is totally unhelpful. Why does a the name of a shop awning next to Farringdon Station with "Farringdon" on it add anything? --SandyDancer 16:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

More of the google

"Farringdon in London", "Farringdon, London", "Clerkenwell, Farringdon", "Farringdon area of London" MRSC 19:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood why I included the google search above - though I can't see why you misunderstood it, considering I inserted in squarely in the middle of a discussion about whether Farringdon should be a DAB page)(which I think it should be)... I have never disputed that people refer to places around the station as being "in Farringdon"... by implying I have, you have set the argument right back to square one. Disappointing. --SandyDancer 16:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking for something else today, I found that many places in EC1 are considered to be in 'Farringdon'; including the postal address of Exmouth Market (next to Mount Pleasant), and Leather Lane Market - all the way over to Chancery Lane. Now, while I don't want to take sides, it would appear that Farringdon had an independent identity as far as the PO was concerned, and that Farringdon == Mount Pleasant as far as the name for the sorting office went. Maybe a quick look at 1930-ish PO directories would help. There are still many caveats attached to equating postal districts, or administrative districts with any real geography. (I wouldn't place too much faith in Travelodge, that's almost on top of Kings X!) Kbthompson 22:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

it would appear that Farringdon had an independent identitity as far as the PO was concerned, and that Farringdon == Mount Pleasant as far as the name for the sorting office went - where has that assertion come from? There is no evidence for that. --SandyDancer 16:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Sandy, I missed that query in the welter of edits. The search I did was on postal addresses, and many of them come back described as being Farringdon EC1. As to the suggestion that old PO directories would be worthwhile looking up, that would be to provide the evidence. I suspect that Mount Pleasant was the district office for Farringdon (EC1) before the introduction of post codes. As to finding that evidence on the Internet, I don't think so. I'm sorry if despite the caveats I included, the statement did not come up to your standards. Kbthompson 13:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I also did a ProQuest search (all newspapers last ten years) with the same search terms. Lots of references to media companies and bars "in Farringdon" or "Farringdon, London". MRSC 05:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Of course you will find that. I have never disputed that sometimes people refer to the area around Farringdon station as being "Farringdon" - similar examples are common across London - e.g. Southwark pubs and bars around London Bridge station are referred to sometimes as being "in London Bridge" [19]. I have given numerous examples myself - what you have placed above doesn't illustrate your point at all. I have also asked you why you think Farringdon is a special case that deserves an article of its own distinct from the station itself, particularly considering there is a real Farringdon in the City of London which does and always has officially existed. You have never answered me on this point.

Another point you have never answered is why the "Farringdon area" this article is about does not appear on any maps of London at all - you have tried tyo equate this "Farringdon area" to Fitzrovia, but then Fitzrovia appears on maps and is a name for an area without any other strong identity. "Farringdon area" / Fitzrovia is not a valid comparison; "Farringdon area" / "London Bridge area" is. The article doesn't reflect this and should. I contend the article is seriously misleading.

To be constructive lets concentrate on working out what we agree on. This is how I see things, and if anyone disagrees I would be interested to see a rebuttal of these actual points:

• Farringdon is an English place name meaning fern covered hill. It is also the name of two wealthy aldermen from many centuries ago and a ward of the City of London was named for them (the ward was subsequently split into two section, the part within the walls of the City, and the part without).
• Farringdon Road, which leads into Farringdon Street, and Farringdon Lane which leads onto Farringdon Road, were all named for the ward due to the fact they led to Farringdon, in the City, from outside of the City.
• In the c19th a railway station was built next to Farringdon Street, just to the north but clearly outside of the Farringdon Without ward. It was named for Farringdon Street because it was next to it. Common practice across London for station names (e.g. Fenchurch Street, Liverpool Street, Cannon Street). The station name was later shortened to "Farringdon Station".
• People in London sometimes refer to areas around tube or rail stations by the name of that station. Notable examples include Liverpool Street, London Bridge and of course Farringdon.
• The examples of areas in Clerkenwell and around being referred to as being "in Farringdon" do not include any maps any of us have found, nor is there any officially designated "Farringdon" area around the station. The only area of London officially referred to as "Farringdon" is in the City, and does not include the area around the station (although the term does not appear to be commonly used to describe thise area of the City and survive only through the name of the administrative wards).
• There is no separate WP article for any similar example of an area around a station sometimes being informally referred to by the name of that station: e.g. London Bridge.

These are the points I am making. As far as I can see they are being steam rollered over through the use of circumstantial evidence. I would suggest Mrsteviec steps back and asks himself - if there is such an area as Farringdon, why doesn't it appear on any maps? --SandyDancer 16:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you would do well to step back yourself: see below. Morwen - Talk 16:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for not addressing any of my points but making an implication I am speaking nonsense by focussing solely on an aside I made in an edit summary. ;-) --SandyDancer 16:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I am making the outright statement that you are obviously being too caught up in this to think properly, as evidenced by your edit summary, and would probably be wise to take a time out at this point. Morwen - Talk 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does that apply to me, and not Mrsteviec who has unilaterally taken ownership of the article (another user first made that accusation so I feel more comfortable doing so), ignored discussion, and set off on a fact-finding mission in the area which has yielded nothing which rebutted any of the points I have raised in discussion? Please at least be even handed. --SandyDancer 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so that no-one is misled into thinking I said something wacky in the edit summary in question, Morwen is referring to this: (edits per my comments in talk which have not been addressed.I note when you click the "City Fringe" link you get a map which doesn't show Farringdon!!)--SandyDancer 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I have said much harsher things to him. Morwen - Talk 17:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

City Fringe

Well, the reason why it doesn't appear on the map on the front page there is because that is a map of wards, it appears.

However, their 2006/2007 business plan does use it as a placename, taking this usage from the Greater London Plan. Morwen - Talk 16:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It actually refers to Farringdon/Smithfield - you may see that as pedantic, but if you follow the discussions above you will see how it makes a difference. Perhaps the reference is to actual Farringdon (i.e. the historic area of the City, which does actually include Smithfield, but not the station?). --SandyDancer 16:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you examine the map in the Greater London Plan it shows the * being right on the City/Camden border. Morwen - Talk 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't see what you are referring to - which page and which star? --SandyDancer 16:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Map 1; page 15 within the PDF. There is a star on the city/camden border labelled "Farringdon/Smithfield". Morwen - Talk 16:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I note that on the same map, in the same size text, "Euston", "Tottenham Court Road", "Clapham Junction", "Kensington High Street" and my old favourite example (see above!) "London Bridge" are also shown. None are "areas" - they are principal streets and railway stations - check out the articles for them - none refer to an "area". So this map is in fact a collection of examples of exactly what I have been referring to above. Thanks for pointing it out to me. --SandyDancer 17:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a personal issue about "Farringdon": you live nearby and dislike people using it as a placename : everything gets interpreted in accordance with that dislike. Big deal. If you want to go and start an article about Waterloo, London or somesuch, be my guest (I note Victoria, London and already exists : that was not intended as sarcasm, Nag's head isn't a station). Morwen - Talk 17:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be very rude, ,have not contributed anything useful to discussion of this article, and enjoy speculating about people's motives rather than dealing with their points.

You have come up with a good example with the Wikipedia article on Victoria, London however. Maybe that's what this article should look like and be called, rather than reading like an attempt to win an argument on whether the area actually exists or not? 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose therefore that Farringdon should be a DAB page, with some content from here going to Farringdon area, London (but much of it going to Farringdon Within and Farringdon Without, e.g. stuff about aldermen and movement of City boundaries. The article should not have an infobox which indicates it is a real as opposed to informal area. Any map should simply show the location of the station, as the article should make no claim other than that the area, such that it is, is vague, undefined and surrounds the station. Sound sensible? Anyone?--SandyDancer 17:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to confine my interjections to question of facts: which are few and far between on this article, and have suggested variously to people that they take breathers (whether on page or through email) - but you do seem to be taking this too personally and I know from my own experience this is no good. Yes, articles should not read like arguments, this is what edit wars produce. Especially if there is no external controversy it can get quite silly. Is there a real life dispute about what Farringdon means? Not that I have seen. We can say with certainty it is a vague term. As a descriptivist I must object to the contrast of "real" vs "informal", though. Morwen - Talk 17:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There hasn't been an edit war. Please don't suggest I have been edit warring, because I haven't. One user has been making unilateral changes, and constructing an article that reads like an argument, and it isn't me. --SandyDancer 17:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Not sure why this edit adds a {{fact}} to "whose name is likely to have originated from one of these places" as Mills (who it is attributed to) and Smith both confirm this. MRSC • Talk 17:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I will remove the fact tag. Sorry, my mistake. --SandyDancer 18:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fitzrovia

I'm unsure why Fitzrovia can't be used as a similar example. It doesn't appear on www.streetmap.co.uk - a search for it comes back with nothing. That one is only 75 years old or so and is formed from the pub. MRSC • Talk 17:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is similar in that its a back formation and a recent one at that. But it appears in the London A-Z (surely as definitive a source as any! ;-) ) and as I suggested above, it is also distinguishable because it is applied to an area with no other strong identity - I'd suggest that's why its gained a bit more currency. All very grey though I admit.

To be clear, I'm no longer suggesting there shouldn't be an article for "Farringdon area, London" (though I'd resist calling it "Farringdon, London" as that could describe either the station or the wards of the City. Do you agree with that idea? Perhaps we should archive some of the discussion above and move on. At least we've learned a lot of new stuff. --SandyDancer 18:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fitzrovia does not appear in either of the A-Zs I have, published 1995 and 2000. MRSC • Talk 18:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong. Sure I looked at it the other day... fair enough. The comparison is valid then. As is the one to Victoria, London --SandyDancer 22:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Elephant and Castle

See Elephant and Castle - an article which begins "The Elephant and Castle, commonly shortened to the Elephant, is a major road intersection in inner south London, and is also used as a name for the surrounding district."

Why can't we include the same form of words in the Farringdon Station article, or failing that in a Farringdon, London? Seems a good solution to me... --SandyDancer 12:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)