Talk:Brent Cross

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Shopping Centers  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shopping Centers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of enclosed shopping malls, outdoor shopping centers, and dead malls 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject London (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Stadium Road[edit]

Anyone got any idea why one of the roads on the site is called Stadium Road? Was there a Stadium of some sort on the site beforehand?

Yes. There was a Greyhound stadium on the site until the 1950s. --Scotthatton (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Article move[edit]

This page should be entitled Brent Cross Shopping Centre as Brent Cross is the name of the whole area - this needs its own article. --Scotthatton (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You guys need a disambiguation link added so people looking for the Catholic Pope's Bent Cross can be redirected tot he correct page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


In my view the two images promoting pressure group campaigns should be removed. Grim23 01:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The first would sit better in a separate article on the proposal for a development much larger than Brent Cross, the second sits already sits in North and West London Light Railway. Indeed, much of the text in Brent Cross#Transport_development duplicates that in North and West London Light Railway so I'll see if I can make the middle work without
- the lengthy introduction about the London mayor
- the case for light rail
- the detail on the North and West London Light Railway. NebY (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
NebY, thanks for removing the duplicated information. The text in the transport development section looks much better. Some of the article still has poorly written text and looks like a blog with promotional images. I'll have a think about how state the facts in an encyclopedic way. Grim23 23:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice work, Grim23. That's let me focus on the Planning Application section. The substance isn't much changed but I've tried to make it less bloggish and tendentious. Net effect still isn't uttery neutral (do you want to try to find who's commented positively and had something substantial to say? Not easy) but at least has council and developers on one side, a selection of objectors on other. NebY (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the developers point of view is the profit motive and the council's is the usual corrupt politics, but I think it will be difficult to find sources that directly show this. This is why I dislike the debate format especially in the lead. I'll try to find out more about the developer(s) and the exact role of the council. Grim23 17:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


Let's keep the caption brief; an illustration that requires lengthy explanation is a failure to illustrate. We can provide enough information for the reader to locate the shopping centre, but we no more need to detail every transport feature than we do every park. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to restrain themselves from linking repetitively or on every occasion that a link can be made and the linkable elements of this caption are already linked in the main article NebY (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why only choose the shopping centre though? The people who live south of the North Circular live in Brent Cross as well. Brent Cross goes as far as the top of the triangular junction, where Cricklewood takes over.
1. Why bother to have a map at all? Most Wikipedia articles on areas of London don't need them. We certainly don't need one with an extensive caption that duplicates the text immediately beside it.
2. What is the basis for your statement that Brent Cross extends to the top of the triangular rail junction, or for implying that Cricklewood ends there? Can you direct us to any map or text describing the boundaries of Brent Cross?
3. Please can you sign your comments using 4 tildes? There is a reminder to do this and how to do this above the edit panel. NebY (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Brent Cross is a very limited area around the A41/North Circular junction and the shopping centre. I wouldn't say the bottom 2/3rds of the map is Brent Cross at all. The coordinates at the top of the page link to all the mapping services, I say lose it. Grim23 01:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Brent Crossing was orginally the A5 crossing the River Brent. Staples Corner is always considered to be Brent Cross, as is the retail park south from PC World to the Multiplex. The shopping centre web site has always said the district was called Brent Cross before the shopping centre was built. Brent Terrace and Whitefields Estate residents seem to believe they live at Brent Cross.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdudding (talkcontribs) 18:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
In my view this is a generous definition of Brent Cross, but still doesn't justify why the Golders Green estate and much of Cricklewood is included on the map. with the GeoHack link at the top of the page do we need a map at all? I agree with Neby that a long caption shows a failure to illustrate. PS Jdudding, you have been asked on several occasions to sign your posts, it is a small courtesy and enables editors to follow who is saying what. Grim23 19:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to find verification for Jdudding's statements. I find no reference to the Watling Street crossing of the River Brent as Brent Crossing, but do find it called Brent Bridge on an 1895 Ordnance Survey map and in a simple Google search. I am astonished by the claim that "Staples Corner is always considered to be Brent Cross"; businesses there are clearly careful not to misdirect their customers and the proper name of "the retail park south from PC World to the Multiplex" is Staples Corner Retail Park. References to residences or businesses in Brent Terrace as being in Brent Cross in the London Gazette are very rare; if qualified, it is normally said to be in Cricklewood. Estate agents continue to describe Brent Terrace properties as being in Cricklewood. The Whitefield School is described as being in Cricklewood when a locality is given. The local residents group is the Cricklewood Community Forum. The publications of the Brent Archive, formerly the Grange Museum, refer to the area as part of the northward expansion of Cricklewood and simply as north Cricklewood.
In short, the description of Brent Cross as extending to the A5 and the inclusion of the history of Watling Street and the Midland Railway in the article now seem not just unverified but also without foundation. I'll adjust the article accordingly. We do now seem to agree or at least accept that the detail map is inappropriate and I'll remove that at the same time. NebY (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest[edit]

Is the Conflict of Interest tag still appropriate? There has been much copy-editing, rewriting, restructuring and additional material and the influence of a single major contributor is no longer so dominant. We may run up against the law of diminishing returns if we try to do much more. NebY (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

After the council meetings in the coming week we can remove mention of future meetings. At that point I would like to remove the Crystal tag, unless anyone inserts further predictions, as well as the Conflict of Interest tag. Does anyone object? NebY (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, sensible plan. Grim23 20:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)