Talk:Honor Oak

Spelling

Why was the tree called "Oak of Honor" and not "Oak of Honour"? The article on American and British English spelling differences seems to indicate that -our endings in Britain go right back to the Norman Conquest. Mtford 12:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that the spelling could be a hang over from the 16th/17th century (about the time the oak was named) scholarly debate over the use of -our/-or ending on English words. In a nutshell some British scholars insisted that -or be used for words of Latin origin and -our for French loans; but in many cases the etymology was not completely clear, and therefore some scholars advocated -or only and others -our only. It was only later that the British formally adopted -our (as used by Dr Samuel Johnson in his Dictionary of the English Language (1755)) and the US –or (partly thanks to Noah Webster). By which time Honor Oak was stuck with an anachronism as far as the UK was concerned. Nshimbi 17:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Questioning the NPOV on restaurants and shops

The section on Amenities and Entertainment feels like it's turning into a classified ads section. Other than the reference against the Indian restaurant there is no supporting evidence for the statements made. I would suggest this information is better placed in a travel guide than an encyclopaedia and should be improved or deleted.

disagree - it's a list. the only opinion is the "highly rated" on le querce - reviews here http://www.hardens.com/restaurant-reviews/uk-london/31-01-07/le-querce-se23/ here http://www.london-eating.co.uk/34843.htm here http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g186338-d788358-Reviews-Le_querce-London_England.html if someone could add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.210.58.216 (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Highlighting one of the other restaurants has been reviewed is missing the point. I'm still not convinced that this section is a appropriate encyclopaedic material. It just seems to be a promotion of the specific establishments with little value to the overall article. It would be possible to find hundreds of restaurants with favourable reviews in London alone , but I don't think that constitutes noteworthiness for an encyclopaedia. I would propose Wikitravel London/Southwark-Lewisham would be a better place for this list and suggest a re-write of this section. Nshimbi (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

on the contrary - two hardens-listed restaurants in an outer-london postcode is a noteworthy occurrence worthy of any encyclopaedia. it gives a flavour of the district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.210.58.216 (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Im removing the notice from this page. I think the above post presents a fair argument and has not been responded to in three months. Harden reference to "Le Querce" will be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.232.96 (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Donde ceased to trade in 2017. The site is currently closed.

The whole amenities and entertainment section should be removed. It smacks of being conceived/curated by a local estate agent. A quick check finds nothing equivalent in pages for Brockley, New Cross, Deptford or Forest Hill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.12.250.91 (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that Donde should be removed and have no issue with the comment on the style of the section. However it is a worthy entry considering the culinary scene is notably good. In fact, arguably the reason why the surrounding areas don't have something similar is because they have nothing equivalent. Have no truck with Brockley, New Cross, Deptford or Forest Hill - they all have their own distinctive features which could not be mentioned in Honor Oak. Morganfield (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Ill-defined geographic area

The following has been removed:

"Honor Oak is a somewhat ill-defined geographical area, with debates especially regarding the boundaries with Forest Hill to the south - the name Forest Hill is sometimes used to describe a wider area that includes most of Honor Oak."

It does not help define the area and just weakens the paragraph re One Tree Hill being a central feature (this being pretty uncontroversial as it defines Honor Oak).

It is highly questionable whether Honor Oak is particularly ill-defined or remarkable if it is so - most areas in London have some debate on this toward the margins. If the citation link to a discussion board, which mostly relates to Forest Hill and defines the area according to postcode, is pertinent then a similar statement should logically apply to Forest Hill too. At the very least not a reliable reference to Wiki standards Morganfield (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

References

The line about 'Well known Journalist Thomas Roles is reported to be moving to the area later this year.' is spam.

I think Actor William Henry Pratt would be considered Peckham not Honor Oak. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/blue-plaques/william-heny-pratt/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.12.250.91 (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Honor Oak is a lot closer than Peckham to that address which is near the foot of One Tree Hill. Interesting that English Heritage have put Peckham Rye in the address as that usually refers to either the green space, area around the station or Rye Lane. Morganfield (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Local forum links

Please can editors refrain from competitive editing of forum links. For a Wikipedia article it is relevant only that a link is here and they help expand on the areas in question, i.e. Honor Oak and Forest Hill. It is not important to these articles in which order but can I suggest a compromise that se23.com is listed first on Forest Hill and se23.life on Honor Oak. The linking text should be identical on both, e.g. "a commercial community forum for Forest Hill and Honor Oak". There is no search engine ranking algorithm, that I know of, that will penalise or overly promote either site because of this. Please respond here with arguments for and against this proposal, thanks. Morganfield (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems very reasonable to me, Morganfield Beachy (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Morganfield for being the voice of reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.142.154 (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me too Silverdale (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

84.92.142.154 has edited links as suggested. Trust that settles the matter Morganfield (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed forum link again as per guidelines [1] Morganfield (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Honor Oak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318025526/http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/ForestHillAndHonorOakSecretsLeaflet.pdf to http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/ForestHillAndHonorOakSecretsLeaflet.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318025526/http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/ForestHillAndHonorOakSecretsLeaflet.pdf to http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/ForestHillAndHonorOakSecretsLeaflet.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111209183234/http://www.projectmanagement.mottmac.com/projects/?mode=type&id=130093 to http://www.projectmanagement.mottmac.com/projects/?mode=type&id=130093

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)