Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Historic Counties (Again)

I believe this has been raised before, but an editor is repeatedly reverting in his changes against the guidance in WP:UKTOWNS and WP:UKCOUNTIES and pushing the view that towns in Greater London remain in their historic counties. Please see Talk:Romford for the main discussion. Looking at the archives here, I think you will recognise the names involved. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, again, guidelines do not override policy. If policy allows a particular edit which is contrary to guidelines, then the guidelines have to change because they are of no effect. The guidelines you refer to are effectively non-existent anyway - they do not work, as evidenced by innumerable edit wars and discussions going back 20 years. Being still there in the form they are is IMO a disgraceful situation. Those guidelines are based on OR caused by and compounded by confusing ambiguous wording in sources and in usage among the general population. As an encyclopedia we have a duty to rise above the shambles that has built up over time and clear the air with academic level information. It does not help having in place the so-called compromise phrase, 'Xtown was historically in Yshire'. At best that phrase is ambiguous, at worse it is wrong. We should question why so many intelligent English language speaking editors cannot understand what it actually means. FWIW, I don't think I am the person you refer to above. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

You and I have agreed that your feelings about the guidelines are better prosecuted on the guidelines pages than on individual content pages. My concern, and reason for posting this here, is that another editor is edit warring their version back in, despite the talk page discussion in which it is very clear we are all well aware that the edit is against the guidelines as they exist. Innumerable edit wars would not be happening if editors who are aware of the guidelines either followed the guidelines or worked to gain consensus to change the guidelines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Guidelines supplement policy; they do not contradict policy but are both more constructive and more restrictive. It is not true that "if policy allows a particular edit which is contrary to guidelines, then the guidelines have to change because they are of no effect", that is either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of the relationship between policy and guidelines. Repeated claims that the guidelines "do not work" only reflect that you favour the repeated breaches of the guidelines. If you don't like the guidelines, make a proposal to change them; if you don't think that would be successful, then accept the guidelines as they are and don't defend breaches of them. NebY (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

There are several debates about this happening elsewhere at the same time. To address one point, if a significant number of credible editors consistantly and over time question a guide or consensus rule, there is something wrong with the rule, not the editors. That alone is one reason why the rule/guidelines have to be re-written. What has happened before is a group of long standing editors have rigidly taken the position that nothing has to change, which blocks any discussion of how new guidelines should be written. I have twice elsewhere invited Sirfurboy to open a new debate at the appropriate place. As far as I know he is a fairly new entrant to this debate so the request might be better coming from him. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You are shifting the burden of responsibility. You have expressed dissatisfaction and so I have suggested at least twice that you can open an RFC or discussion on the guidelines page. I won't do it. I happen to think the guidelines are right, and I only see two editors trying to question them. It appears to me that the consensus view is probably that they are fine. However, anyone who knows me will know I am open to persuasion if a good and logical case is made with appropriate sourcing. The onus is on you to either seek to change the guidelines, or else to adhere to them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This is what the UK govt says about the HCs:

"The legislation that currently defines counties for the purposes of the administration of local government is set out in the Local Government Act 1972. That legislation :abolished previous administrative counties (those established by the Local Government Act 1933).

Section 216 of the 1972 Act also substituted the new counties (i.e. those established under the 1972 Act) for counties of any other description for the purposes of commissions :of the peace and the law relating to justices of the peace, magistrates’ courts, the custos rotulorum, lieutenants, sheriffs and connected matters.

The Act did not specifically abolish historic counties, but they no longer exist for the purposes of the administration of local government, although some historic county areas :may be coterminous with non-metropolitan county areas established by the 1972 Act.

When the 1972 Act came into effect, it was said of the new councils created:

They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change."

Why do you think this statement carries less weight than a statement drawn up by a few wiki editors twenty-odd years ago, and based merely on their view? If you think it does not but correct procedure has to be followed to have the wp sentence changed, with which I would agree, please say so.

For the record, here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_23 is a recent discussion on this topic in the current place to have that discussion. Do you what another one to begin there? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Re This is what the UK govt says about the HCs - you should always provide a source for quoted claims. In this case it is most likely Celebrating the historic counties of England, published 16 July 2019. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you what another one to begin there? - that would perhaps be more appropriate than discussing here, but the guidelines page is the correct place as has been stated repeatedly. The purpose of this thread is merely to alert editors that a number of pages within scope of this project have been edited in a manner not in line with current guidelines. I have been finding these with Google so my list is likely incomplete, but to date I have found the following (marking with an asterisk where my attempts to bring the page in line with guidelines have been reverted).

1. Beckton (At time of writing it is compliant with guidelines. I also edited in some sources but could do with more work)
2. Bexleyheath
3. Chingford
4. Croydon* (At time of writing page is compliant with guidelines)
5. Enfield, London*
6. Greenwich
7. Lewisham*
8. North Woolwich
9. Romford* (At time of writing page is compliant with guidelines)
10. Stratford, London*
11. Walthamstow
12. Woodford, London*
13. Erith (ETA: thanks Garfie489 for finding this and next 3. See below)
14. Sidcup (At time of writing page is compliant with guidelines)
15. Slade Green
16. Welling

If anyone has any others, please feel free to edit into this list. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

So i decided to have a quick scan around Bexleyheath as thats the location i was looking into a few days ago after talking to a friend in the area. These are a few of the locations within a few miles radius - Erith, Welling, (Bexley), Sidcup, Slade Green, (Eltham) - the ones in brackets have articles which are fine, the ones without brackets have articles that wrongly portray the historic county as the primary information. As you can see, the majority of articles have been vandalised in some way. You will quickly notice however looking at their history, a single user usually prevents them being updated and has been warned for edit wars on their talk page. We see the same account preventing edits at Bexleyheath, Erith, Welling, and Slade Green - reverting well intentioned editors trying to make a difference, then frustrating them till they give up via the talk pages.

The thing i note generally having gone a little further around the area - locations with "Location, London" are immune to these issues because they are identified clearly within London. Similarly more major settlements like Stratford are untouched - likely because any such edit would gain massive attention and be outvoted. This seems to be limited to the minor locations around the edge of London, where this political movement can tire and frustrate any potential editors by deadlocking discussions with only a few members involved. Romford seemed to have taken years of struggle to push through, but luckily is a large enough location that it seems to get the attention to push through - Bexleyheath is 4x smaller in population and likely less culturally significant, it clearly does not have the same people behind it to ensure the Wiki is a representation of relevance and fact - and not personal political beliefs.

Just to compare the two leads for Romford and Bexleyheath

Romford is a large town in east London, England, located 14 miles (23 km) north-east of Charing Cross. The administrative centre of the London Borough of Havering, it is in the ceremonial county of Greater London. The town is identified as a major metropolitan centre in the London Plan

Bexleyheath is a town in south-east London, England, located in the historic county of Kent. It had a population of 31,929 as at 2011.

Romford and Bexleyheath are theoretically very similar locations. Both are in east London (north and south of the river), both are about 13 miles from Charing Cross, both are administrative centres for their respective London boroughs, and both are in the ceremonial counties of Greater London. The only real difference is Romford is a more major settlement (about 4x the population). Yet... does that come across at all?

Its about time we end these years worth of edit wars and get the relevant information first and foremost to the people that come here for information. These are articles about modern day locations, and they should represent the information important to someone either living in, or looking to find out about the modern day location - not what they looked like in 1888. Yes, history is important. Yes, history should be covered. But history is not the first thing to present to a reader when it may be potentially confusing and out of context. If Washington DCs page mentioned it was in the historical state of Virginia as the first line, someone could easily surmise its not a federal district - the boundaries of 1888 are certainly worthwhile knowing, but not before the more relevant discussion as per the guidelines set out. The issue we have, is it will take hundreds of edit wars to sort this damage out - likely in locations no one cares to argue against this political movement. So its clear some higher level action needs to be taken, because Roger 8 Roger is aware with the current system, they can frustrate edits for years.... as they already have done. The argument for historic counties is it somehow remains in peoples hearts - yet no sources confirm this, and frankly what is in peoples hearts is not suitable for the lead in a location Wiki article unless explicitly about a conflict. Governments words on this is effectively "We cant make you not cherish these" but yet they have no relevance in a persons day to day activities in the same way local government would outside a few individual road signs and the odd flag. Garfie489 (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You are right, they are everywhere. I just found 18 more on pages of places I am familiar with. I found at least as many compliant pages, but it is clear there are many more to find. I fixed all 18 and won't add them to my list unless the changes get reverted - that list will become unmanageable otherwise. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It may at least be worth listing them somewhere as people go along, as otherwise you may be just one person and thus the political movements tactics of deadlocking edits by endlessly arguing in talk pages till death may continue. But yes, i looked into my own personal area and luckily it seems theres been enough individuals over a long enough period to push these changes through - but from the brief glance, it seems issues are more widely corrected north than south of the river (which i know much less about). My method was to simply center on Bexleyheath on a map and pick out the major settlements around it, and that was about half and half as you say Garfie489 (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

More reverts of attempts to fix these pages. PlatinumClipper96 has now reverted back in his bold edit of August at Whitechapel and an edit of mine at Fulwell, London. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeh unfortunately it seems this is not the first time this has happened, by a long way. The same user is currently trying to ban me for some made up reason (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mgkfact) and thats made me look more into their history. Its likely i could tag 10 users at least that have accused the individuals edit warring here of also edit warring in the past - and thats with a relatively light read of archives. Unfortunately i dont think anythings going to be done until they are removed from Wikipedia, as the strategy appears to be to edit war anyone that disagrees with their personal beliefs - until they either give up, or then have investigations launched against them. Garfie489 (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Would I be right in thinking that the places in question all fall within postcode areas that lie both inside and outside the present Greater London boundary? For example, amongst the various places mentioned above, I see Bexleyheath, Erith, Sidcup, Slade Green and Welling at least twice each, and these are all within the DA postcode area. Now the letters DA are derived from the town of Dartford, and Dartford is indisputably Kent; but some parts of the DA postcode area lie within modern Greater London. Postcode boundaries do not follow administrative areas - they exist purely for the convenience of the Post Office. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

As you say, postcode boundaries are purely for the convenience of the Post Office who don’t use counties at all for delivery. Thus postcode boundaries are irrelevent. The question is whether the locations fall within Greater London (the ceremonial county, which is what we use as default county in wikivoice). They all do. So they all lie withing the geographical county of Greater London whereas they all historically lay within other counties, the historical counties. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

And just for the fun of it, I will mention my home postcode lies within the SY Shrewsbury postcode, despite being two whole (large) counties away and in another country. So yeah postal towns are irrelevant. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Garfield, I accept you are now gloating on centre stage, having been found not guilty in the court of wiki-arbitrator opinion. When the applause dies down though, please consider this is not a case of edit warring. It is about two opposing views, both with evidence to back them, and guidelines built on one set of views. That is all, personal views, questionable interpretations of weak sources or text taken out of context, not views based on strong indisputable evidence from quality sources. And do not for one minute think this is about one, two or even three editors against an overwhelmingly large majority opinion as you portray: over time there have been many high quality editors who have questioned the current guidelines. To reiterate, edit warring is the wrong way to look at this. It is better seen as editors following normal wikipedia policy, and at times using common sense, but coming up against flawed guidelines that get in the way. For anyone reading this without any knowledge of what has happened in the past, your accusations of groundlessly trying to get you blocked are wrong. There has been a pattern of edits over time by various usernames that shows a remarkable similarity to your style of editing, and they have been blocked for socking and other misdemeanors. If you are indeed not part of that person or persons then that is good but just your bad luck on you. Questioning whether you were part of this ongoing socking group was quite justified. But, I accept the decision that you are not a sock, and will assume you are editing in good faith. I hope you can now stop following the breach of guidelines angel and go out and find the evidence that historic counties no longer exist with their original boundaries. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The question should not be whether historic counties exist, but whether they are relevant. To be in the lead of a Wiki, the information should be relevant. Discussing law revisions from over 100 years ago will always create misunderstandings to the true intention of the laws - however that is simply not a matter that needs discussing here. Question is, what is a county? - what does it do. And really theres two answers here - they are either administrative, forming the local Government a King/Queen would historically rule their land through to raise taxes under the stewardship of a count. The areas ruled by these Counts over time became Ceremonial counties, now run by "Lord-lieutenants". Historically these Ceremonial and Administrative areas were the same, but over time they differed - so i fully understand the argument of whether we prioritise Ceremonial or Administrative county, but thats not relevant here.

So the question should not be when did Historical counties stop, but rather - how do they continue? And the fact is... they dont. Not in the sense they once were in the 1800's. This leads to multiple questions - how historic do you want your historic counties to be? Multiple locations could be in several counties depending on what year you agree to freeze the border. This is not suitable to a Wiki, especially not in the lead of some random town thats trying to have its own article away from this debate. The argument for historic counties basically comes down to "The locals can feel it in their hearts" - yet the majority of the local population has never had any affect in their day to day lives from historic counties, and a majority would look more towards their respective administrative or ceremonial counties for things that actually affect them and are visible to them. The Wiki is not a place to be putting what the locals "feel in their hearts" first and foremost on the lead to an article, especially when it is entirely original research and the opinion of a few individuals without source or citation.

Historic counties can, and should be represented in the history section of the locations in question - if they are then in multiple historic counties, this then allows a reader to track their changes over time. However in the lead for an article, there needs to be a clear contextualisation of the county information to avoid confusion. Stating "X is in the historic county of Y" as the first line of any article is completely redundant. It confuses any further county information, and has no relevance to the location being talked about in the modern day setting. The lead introduces someone to the vital information of where and what a place is today - history is supplementary, and must be contextualised - especially when potentially contradictory or confusing. Garfie489 (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

RR and SB - Gentlemen please (or ladies I suppose), yes that is all true about postal areas and it has been mentioned many times before, including by me, that the counties tension is most likely to be felt along boundary lines; that is obvious. What is interesting is the way you have chosen evidence and then looked for some sort of wrong doing to fit with that evidence. Try that in a court room and you wouldn't last very long as you doubtless know. Anyway, when I last looked, Stratford and Romford are not in the DA postal area, and neither is Croydon, et cetera. If you are just musing, I agree that outer boroughs all around GL will have postal towns outside GL which may result in the county of that postal town being used in addresses of settlements within GL. You then seem to be drawing the conclusion that those settlements within GL are not in an historic county. I cannot see the connection. Is this just one more example of the way this entire approach to dealing with counties in UK wikipedia has been handled - assumptions and guesswork that doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

At no point did I claim that Romford was in DA postcode area. The five places that I named were preceded by the phrase For example, amongst the various places mentioned above, I see, note the first two words in particular. My point is that if for example, somebody editing the article for Bexleyheath looked at the postcode area and saw DA, and thought "oh, that's Dartford, which is in Kent, therefore Bexleyheath must be in Kent too", they might then add the mention of Kent. That's all. Nothing in my post suggests that I am drawing the conclusion that those settlements within GL are not in an historic county, so please don't twist my words. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I meant no slur on you or Sirfurboy: you are both beyond reproach in my opinion. My underlying point is this topic is far from simple and the guidelines are not fit for purpose, allowing ambiguity and assumptions to run rife. You post is a case in point. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

So PlatinumClipper96 has again been reverting in his preferred but non compliant edits, without engaging here. This time at: Fulwell, London, Goddington, Morden and Plumstead. PlatinumClipper96, you are aware that your edits are against the guidelines and the standing consensus. Your constant reverts to your preferred version over scores of pages are wasting time and really not helping the project. I have signposted you to this page. Would you please discuss it here rather than going through the charade of discussing this on every one of the talk pages where you keep reverting in your version. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, you are the one WP:MASSEDITing. You are the one who has tried to scatter this discussion across talk pages (for example [1] and [2]). I was the one suggesting we have a discussion about your mass edits on your talk page. I'm happy to have this discussion here, but I would pretty much be repeating myself. You haven't engaged with any of the points I have raised on your talk page or article talk pages.

Meanwhile you decided to use Google Search to mass edit Greater London articles (as you have admitted), changing historic county wording in the lead to your preferred version. You are making "constant reverts". It took you 9 minutes to revert my changes to the factually incorrect wording you introduced at Chingford. I'd argue your behaviour "over scores of pages" is "wasting time and really not helping the project". You often accuse me of violating WP:UKTOWNS and WP:UKCOUNTIES. You are aware that your interpretation of the guidelines differs to that of mine and other editors.

WP:UKTOWNS guidance is crystal clear that the historic county should be included in the lead of a settlement article if its ceremonial county is different to its historic county. WP:UKCOUNTIES states "we do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries" and "use language that asserts past tense". This guidance applies to county articles. At pages like Middlesex, however, present tense wording has been stable for many years. I am not aware of any consensus this line reflects. Also, whether historic counties exist in the present or not, I struggle to see why a place cannot be described as being in that set of boundaries.

My recent reverts to your bold edits (more mass edits to Greater London articles) were to address the fact the wording you introduced was factually incorrect. The London Government Act 1963 had no impact on the set of counties referred to as historic counties. The definitions of the historic counties were not, and could not have been, changed by the creation of Greater London as Greater London is not a historic county. I am not aware of any consensus that the London Government Act 1963 abolished, or changed, the historic counties.

I'll end this reply by carrying over what I left on your talk page in our last discussion:

Hi Sirfurboy. Thought I'd take this to your talk page, as it makes more sense than continuing the same discussion across talk pages (and angry edit summaries!) on the many articles we've both made the same sorts of edits to.

Having logged back into Wikipedia after a week offline, I see you've been continuing to go through Greater London area articles that mention their relevant historic county in the lead. In some cases you've removed mention of the relevant historic county altogether ([3] [4] [5] [6]) for example. In others you have removed mention of "historic county" and the article instead reads that the place was once in a county ([7] [8] for example). In others you have written that the place "was in the historic county" "until 1965" ([9] [10] [11] [12] for example).

Needless to say I am disappointed with your response here. Thought it was a perfectly reasonable idea to discuss your mass editing of Greater London area articles on your talk page, instead of repeating the same discussion across different pages (as you again tried to do here [13]). You are mass editing. You are the common denominator. You say the "guidelines are quite clear" but your interpretation of them quite clearly differs from mine and that of plenty of other editors. I would argue that many of your edits "do not conform". The lead wording you are mass editing across Greater London articles, the majority of which neither I, you, nor Roger 8 Roger have had anything to do with, had been stable for years until they fell within the scope of your mass edits based on Google searches. What "consensus" do you claim there actually is, by the way? Is it that historic counties were abolished? Is it that they should be mentioned in a certain way? Is it that your interpretation of the guidelines is the correct one? There has been plenty of discussion about this, but no consensus. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

So Sirfurboy has continued making mass edits, this time at Kenley, Ramsden, Orpington, Pratt's Bottom, Derry Downs, Plaistow, Bromley and Sundridge, London. His "was in the historic county until 1965" wording is factually incorrect. My objections are above. @Sirfurboy, I am reverting your bold edits, and encouraging you to continue discussion here. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Per WP:MASSEDIT, Mass editing is editing that occurs when a single editor makes the same change to a large number of articles, typically employing the assistance of a tool such as the AutoWikiBrowser. This term does not apply to purely manual edits to a small number of articles over a period of months. What I am engaging in is simply known as editing.
2. Yes, I reverted your reinsertion of information that has already been removed by a clearly established consensus at Chingford. You know why. Your 4 reverts of my edits followed this, and interestingly all 4 on pages you had not previously edited. How did you find my edits?
3. As I said at my talk page, I would not have a content discussion there when the correct place to have one is here. BUT this is the place for the content discussion and not the place for a complaint against an editor, so:
4. Having finally come here, nothing you have said above explains why you continue to revert out edits that comply with WP:UKTOWNS and WP:UKCOUNTIES in favour of your preferred versions that do not. You are editing against guidelines and consensus. Why? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

   Another 15 reverts in the time it took me to write that message? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

   so the edits of mine you have reverted today are at:

   1. Fulwell, London
   2. Goddington
   3. Morden
   4. Plumstead
   5. Hatch End
   6. New Addington
   7. Kevington, London
   8. Newyears Green
   9. West Heath, London
   10. Harlington, London
   11. Bickley
   12. Longford, London
   13. Sundridge, London
   14. Plaistow, Bromley
   15. Derry Downs
   16. Pratt's Bottom
   17. Ramsden, Orpington
   18. Kenley

   Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

   My bold edit to Chingford (which introduced slightly different wording, with historic county mentioned solely in the second paragraph as suggested by the other talk page contributor) was to counter the factually incorrect "in the historic county until 1965" wording you introduced. There is no consensus at Chingford, or on this WikiProject, that the London Government Act 1963 redefined the historic counties. It remains reverted by you. My recent reverts were to recent bold edits from you, mass or not.

   My reasons for reverting you are outlined clearly in this thread, and in the relevant edit summaries. Some of your bold edits, which I reverted, did not comply with the guidelines you cite (as you had removed any mention of the historic county from the article). My reasons for reverting are clear in each relevant edit summary.

   Your reverts to my edits are often on pages you had never previously edited. It took you 9 minutes, like I said, to revert my edit at Chingford earlier today. This series of edits from you, to articles you have no history editing, was triggered by an edit of mine to Croydon last month.

   As you said, this is the place for the content discussion and not the place for a complaint against an editor. Let's discuss the content. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

This is now on a level of edit warring where it simply can not be tolerated. PlatinumClipper96 you have been extremely disruptive over years of edit warring on the same issue with multiple users. The guidelines are clear, the consensus is clear. Your years of "contributions" have been nothing but disruptive in pushing a political agenda, with no evidence of relevance and are contrary to guidelines. My suggestion is to immediately revert your "contributions" and allow Sirfurboy🏄's to stand as per basically every conversation thats ever taken place on this issue - otherwise i will be left no option to open an ANI. This has gone on long enough, and needs to end here Garfie489 (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Garfie489, but I have already taken this to ANI. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#PlatinumClipper96 - WP:POVPUSH, edit warring and retaliatory reverts. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Also he proceeded to revert two more:

• Bexleyheath
• Hayes, Bromley

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh in which case, let me know if theres anything i can do to support. Admittedly my knowledge is mostly Fandom, where these issues are dealt with more personally so not experienced on the Wiki side. Garfie489 (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It is the articles that suffer from all this. Look at Beckton, which straddled multiple parishes across Essex/Kent then Essex/London and finally Greater London. But that has been completely wiped from the introduction to be replaced with the factually inaccurate and mealy mouthed "it was formerly in the historic county of Essex but now lies in the ceremonial county of Greater London." The article introduction now contradicts the main text (this happens a lot, because these edit warriors seem only interested in hijacking the introduction). Tired of watching our guidelines gamed like this. MRSC (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this propensity to add information to the lead, without bothering with what is or is not in the article is itself a major issue, as often the information is unsourced. It should not be necessary to add citations to the lead sections, because the history in the lead should be summarising the main section. I just took a look at Beckton in particular, with a view to either restoring the previous lead, or updating this one to more accurately reflect the main sections, but I haven't changed it yet. You say it straddled parishes in Kent, but the main section of that page currently says that it bordered Kent on the boundary with Woolwich. So I think maybe it needs some updates in the main too, and then we can adjust the lead to match. Do you have any information as to parts of Beckton that were in Kent? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I think part of the problem with these articles is the edit warring by the historic county brigade. It ends up that edits focus on trying to repair their damage, rather than working articles from the ground up to be correct and as per guidelines. Hopefully the current ANI will sort that out, and thus edits can take a more rounded view going forwards to fix these issues. Remember most of the articles they target are pretty low traffic in terms of contributions, and the extend of their edits likely has partly contributed to the quality in how they are corrected.

It seems theres a lot of support for a block, just needs to actually go through and hopefully thats the start of fixing this issue once and for all. The main thing that needs to be cleared up going forwards is the first paragraph should be for currently relevant information, with a second paragraph for historically relevant information - as per guidelines. Obviously some places will have more or less than this, but at least splitting like this avoids confusion whilst still acknowledging the information and contextualising it in a way thats understandable to an uninformed user. Garfie489 (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I have skim read these latest remarks and unless I am misunderstanding something I am pleasantly surprised at what looks like some constructive analysis. Working from the bottom up is the way forward - as I recently suggested there must be a better section on history and/or local govt to put this all in context. I still have an issue about the current position of HCs (is v was) but that will be much easier dealt with if there is a better local govt history section. Local govt throughout the uk has been riddled with complexities for a long time which makes it a wonderful opportunity for editors to get their teeth into some proper wp work. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The main issue is relevance. I dont think anyone is against mentioning historical counties, where history is relevant - however unless the article is historical in nature, that information is not relevant in the first line of any location.

I tried looking through what i think is the best article currently in my local area, and came to the conclusion Ilford [[14]] is what i personally consider a model article lead. First paragraph gives you all the relevant local information of where it is, how big it is, and local Government relevant to people in that area. Second paragraph is a more subjective but detailed look into the importance of the location to culture and the places around it - with the third paragraph covering the history.

I have no complaints about how that is presented. Its a relatively good lead, and whilst im not arguing its perfect - everything in it is relevant to whats trying to be conveyed in each paragraph, and nothing is confusing whilst giving a good summary to someone that knew nothing of the area. Compare to say Romford which could really do with being split into multiple paragraphs and doesnt order the information in a well structured way.

The big issue we see time and time again is people trying to put HC's into the very first line. I cant think of any location off the top of my head where thats suitable, because theres no location where historical information with no modern relevance is that important. Look at PC96's old Bexleyheath lead for example "Bexleyheath is a town in south-east London, England, located in the historic county of Kent" - that is needlessly confusing to anyone trying to get relevant information. By that, theyd likely assume the most important thing to know about the location is its located in a historic county.... which is completely unsubstantiated. Theres no mention of the actual county it currently resides in, local council, or any information which is relevant to the location as of today - this is the major issue many have issues with and aim to address, its just its often easier to make the county information relevant rather than rewriting the lead from the ground up. Garfie489 (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, relevance is key and relevance is determined by what is in RSSs. That will vary from place to place. If sufficient RSSs, correctly weighted towards recent usage, refer to Bexleyheath, Kent, then that becomes relevant. Whether or not Bexleyheath is now in HC Kent, is not important because we act on what is in RSSs. That also means that even if Bexleyheath is only referred to as in HC Kent because it is in the Dartford postal area, it does not matter. Next, the lead: yes, an isolated mention of anything in the lead, that is not based on what is in the body should be avoided. Ilford is a good article. Although I would tweak it in places, the bones of a good local govt section are there and mention of Essex is put in context. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Garfie489 "theres no location where historical information with no modern relevance is that important" - if that was the case, why do so many people and sources often refer to historic counties rather than current ceremonial counties as the location of certain places? Romford, Chingford, Woodford and Ilford have countlessly been described as part of Essex; Bromley, Bexleyheath, and even inner-city areas like Greenwich and Lewisham as Kent; Croydon as Surrey; and Uxbridge, Enfield and Pinner as Middlesex.

Yes - their position within London, and, as consensus supports, local council district and current administrative information, should take priority. Historic counties can supplement this information. I would support this in any prominent position within the lead as long as it is done accurately.

My objections to Sirfurboy's bold new wording, which he has been bulk-editing in (and reverting my reverts to) across Greater London articles, are above. The administrative and ceremonial counties places in Outer London left in 1965 were not the historic counties as they did not share the same boundaries at that time. Much of the historic counties of Middlesex, Surrey and Kent, for instance, were not within the administrative/ceremonial counties of Middlesex, Surrey and Kent as they were in the County of London at that time. The historic counties refer to a specific set of county boundaries, regardless of administrative changes. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Many people and sources cite the earth is flat.... we tend to ignore these due to the weight of sources that contradict this.

Many sources will state postal counties because it used to be an easy source to use, but was never geographically accurate. Does the fact people incorrectly use postal counties give prevalence to historic counties - no... no it doesnt. Fact is, when a source cites a county - we often do not know what county type they are citing. In many cases lazy journalism has given prevalence to postal counties where it maybe shouldnt have done. The confusion around this is why county information should be clear and distinct, rather than throwing historic counties in for the hell of it.

There is no reason for historic counties to have any prominence. Absolutely none. They should be in their own separate paragraph with a short history section as per guidelines, so they can be placed in the context where they are significant - historically. Garfie489 (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Garfie489 "They should be in their own separate paragraph with a short history section as per guidelines" - there are no guidelines that state this. Topic guidance states that the historic county should be included in the lead.

"There is no reason for historic counties to have any prominence. Absolutely none." - then why not raise an RfC and try and see if there is consensus to support this. Historic counties continue to be used as geographical references, including for sporting purposes, community organisations, and even government publications. See this [15] from the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government - the very government department responsible for local government and administrative districts. Hardly WP:FRINGE. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

"Historic county (if in England or Wales and if different from current county), and a brief paragraph about historical roots / founding" - the guidelines literally state this.

Should it be included in the lead... yes.

Should it be in the first sentence? - well if a lead sentence has managed to cover the Geographic description, Name of settlement,

Type of settlement, Administrative district, Ceremonial County, Constituent country, Geographic location, Physical geography, and Total resident population all within one sentence..... then the reader is dead from asphyxiation.

The guidelines are clear. There should be a paragraph summarising local history - logical sense states county borders relevant to history are best placed there, where they are relevant. The lead shouldnt really be a single paragraph, it should be 2 or 3 which condense specific information into where it is logical to present them. Garfie489 (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The administrative and ceremonial counties places in Outer London left in 1965 were not the historic counties as they did not share the same boundaries at that time. Not sure I follow here. Administrative counties and ceremonial counties (called "counties" in the legislation) were not co-extensive and neither are they today. Neither of these are coextensive with the ancient historic counties either, owing to various boundary changes. Yet the various acts redrew the county map. Legislation cannot change history, so it cannot change the fact that Romford was in Essex, but the legislation most certainly did ensure that from 1965 it was in the county of Greater London. Some counties were abolished, and others redrawn. Surrey's headquarters in Kingston became an exclave (well not officially an exclave, but you know what I mean). And here is the end of the matter: Wikipedia guidelines say that we do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. That is the guideline. If you think the guideline is wrong, suggest a new wording in an RFC. As long as that guideline is there, editors should conform to the understanding that historical counties are, and the cluse is in the name here, historical. They are the counties as they existed for many hundreds of years, but the boundaries were gradually redrawn in the 19th and 20th centuries, and so they are now historical. Romford is not in Essex, Bromley is not in Kent, Croydon is not in Surrey. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, as you said, "Neither of these are coextensive with the ancient historic counties either, owing to various boundary changes". Your "in the historic county until 1965" wording implies the set of county boundaries referred to "historic" or "traditional" changed. I disagree with the guideline you reiterate, but saying a place is in a historic county still does not imply otherwise. The phrase "historic county" clearly makes a clear distinction between current, ceremonial county (which, as the government source I cited states, "form the current structure of our counties in England") and the set of historic counties, (which "are still used and understood by many people today" according to the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. As User:Jdcooper warned at Bexleyheath earlier, saying a place was in a historic county implies these administrative changes had an impact on this set of counties.

I really hope we can draw a line under our reverts, angry ANI replies, etc, and engage in something constructive. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The wording implies it was historically within the county. If that is your problem, I would be quite content with changing "was in the historic county of..." with "was historically in the county of..." As regards ANI, I do not take such actions lightly. I have never taken an editor to ANI before, and I believe your behaviour justifies a topic ban. I am not the first person to suggest this. I am sorry to say that, but your edits over a long period have simply been a litany of edit wars to assert something you know is against the guidelines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, it is your opinion that saying a place is in a historic county to supplement its location in its current ceremonial county and position in London is against the guidelines. The phrase historic county makes a clear distinction from the current ceremonial county, and using the present-tense "is" does not assert what is referred to as the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries at WP:UKCOUNTIES. I am not the only editor with this view, as you'll see from previous discussion dating back years. Yes, I disagree with this guidance, but it really isn't relevant to this matter - which is not settled. You have recently replaced this stable wording on dozens of articles for areas across Greater London, and reverted my reverts to your bold edits that either introduced "in the historic county until 1965" or removed mention of the historic county completely, rather than discussing. One could consider your activity since our encounter at Croydon last month worthy of an ANI report. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

If you want to start engaging constructively, you need to stop shoehorning the HC into the first sentence of articles, stop using it as a geographic descriptor, and stop arguing that such placement is within WP:UKTOWNS guidelines, and you need to clearly and openly commit to all of that. So long as you insist and persist, the removal of your systematic insertions is unobjectionable. NebY (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I doubt thats going to happen, but hopefully the ANI concludes soon. Seems to be a clear consensus for further action, and hopefully we can all have a constructive discussion afterwards about the lessons learnt and how to deal with it in future. Garfie489 (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

My last historic county-related bold edit was here [16] on 9 December at Chingford. I did not attempt to "shoehorn the HC into the first sentence". In the second paragraph, I replaced wording that claimed the town was in the historic county of Essex until 1965, ("Prior to becoming part of the ceremonial county of Greater London in 1965, Chingford was in the historic county of Essex") with "Part of the historic county of Essex, Chingford was...". This bold edit was reverted by Sirfurboy within 9 minutes.

My last historic county-related bold edit prior to this was here on 13 November [17] at Croydon. It was to the second sentence, with the main geographical descriptors being south London, the London Borough of Croydon and Greater London.

Sirfurboy has been making historic county-related bold edits on a far larger scale. Despite discussion, he has been using Google Search to systematically make similar changes to articles across Greater London, most of which neither of us had ever been involved in previously. Sirfurboy is the one "insisting and persisting" here, reverting my reverts to his bold edits. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

My mistake - you also need to stop shoehorning the historic county into the second sentence, or any other sentence as a geographical descriptor. It is entirely reasonable for another editor to seek out articles that don't comply with our guidelines, having instead a mention of historic county shoehorned in to the detriment of our readers in order to satisfy an editor's agenda, and fix them. If you want to engage constructively, you need to stop reverting those edits (eg [18][19][20]). NebY (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

PC96, That doesn't appear to be very accurate. Your latest edit on Chingford was on the 22 December, not the 9 December. It was fully the 18th time you had attempted to place such wording in the lead of that article including on 21 November [21], 19 November [22] and 18 November [23], all demonstrably after what you claim as your last such edit on 13 November. Indeed you were engaged in a slow burn edit war on that page, and that is just Chingford. There were countless others. And note the history of the Chingford page. You were not edit warring with me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, I meant the 22nd December, and you know that. I linked the exact diff. All three edits you linked are reverts to bold edits per WP:BRD, not bold edits. I made my objections to these bold edits from LondonEast4, which were not just about historic counties, clear in edit summaries. How many times have you attempted to place your preferred historic county wording in articles for places across Greater London? Why should your behaviour be beyond the same criticism of mine? PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The bold edit at Chingford was yours.[24] Nothing you did there conformed to WP:BRD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

My bold edit was made on 11 February 2021. LondonEast4 was the bold editor on 31 July 2022 [25]. I was not the only editor to support the pre-LondonEast4 wording (restored here [26] by Dr Greg, who pertinently stated "this sentence isn't about the current boundaries of Essex, it's about the historic boundaries (that's what "historic county" means)" and here [27] by Serial Number 54129). Changes to this stable wording were mainly by indef blocked users/sock accounts. Again, the phrase historic county makes a clear distinction from the current ceremonial county, and using the present-tense "is" does not assert what is referred to as the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries at WP:UKCOUNTIES. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@NebY, I made the three reverts you linked because they violated topic guidelines. The bold edits being reverted removed any mention of the historic county. "It is entirely reasonable for another editor to seek out articles that don't comply with our guidelines, having instead a mention of historic county shoehorned in to the detriment of our readers in order to satisfy an editor's agenda, and fix them" - WP:UKTOWNS is perfectly clear that the historic county should be included in the lead where current/ceremonial county is different. If your view is that inclusion of the historic county is "to the detriment of our readers", feel free to propose a change to the guidelines. The double standards you are both displaying are beyond belief. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:UKTOWNS is clear; the historic county does not form part of the geographic description and goes with the history, later. You persist in placing it as a geographical descriptor at the start of the lead and persist in reverting removals. If you want to engage constructively, start placing it better. NebY (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I have just posted the below in Bexleyheath. It is reproduced here because it might be more relevant here.

There appears to be guarded consensus of improving an article body before mentioning HCs in the lead. We now get to another problem that quite frankly has always bewildered me because it is promoted by clearly educated editors. There are three points to this. One, do we refer to a place as is or was in HC X? I thought there was wakening consensus that it depends on the context and does not depend on the current existence or not of HCs. Two, the current existence of HCs. To me there is absolutely no ambiguity at all that they have never been formally abolished (in fact they have been formally kept after their local govt role was removed - see 1889 LG act). Any treatment of them as being no longer in existence can therefore only be because they have become obsolete. That will depend on which place we are talking about because there are levels of obsolete-ness. Three, and perhaps the most baffling, is simply the English language, grammar and meaning. Is/was are both perfectly acceptable: any confusion arises from the reader's ignorance which here we ignore because we must assume a reasonable level of educated understanding. Similarly, saying Bexleyheath is in GL and the HC of Kent, is not in any way confusing. It is no different from saying London is in England and Europe. The solution come up with has been to say 'Bexleyheath was historically in Kent' which IS ambiguous, making it poor English. The word 'historically' does not mean 'historic', they are subtly different. The adjective historic when referring to counties, in the term 'historic counties' can be confusing, even to slightly more educated people. It does not mean 'in the past and not the present: it means established a long time ago and seeped in historical detail. I note the govt refers to HCs as 'traditional counties'. My guess is that is because it removes any ambiguity that the govt is taking the position that HCs do not currently exist. The guidelines say 'we do not take the view that the HC still exist with their previous borders '. What on earth is that supposed to mean? I am speechless! Does it mean they do in fact exist, but with different borders, which is the closest interpretation of that sentence, or that they no longer exist and their previous borders are also no longer in existence? That clumsy sentence would not pass GCSE let alone A level English. Still with English usage, with Bexleyheath, we must not say 'Bexleyheath is not in Kent' without qualification. Even if the consensus default area of a place is its current ceremonial or local govt area, use of that sentence is very ambiguous, if not simply wrong. It is not our fault the word 'county' has many meanings. It is not our job to decide what the word county should mean, which is what that sentence is doing - original research. It is however, our job to remove or explain ambiguity if it exists. How that can be done is rarely discussed here. Whatever we do it must not be to take a definite stand or create further ambiguity about the meaning of the word 'county' Please note with the Derry/Londonderry debate, consensus reached is that one is used for the city and the other for the county, with no decision taken on which is the correct name. That is how consensus should be used, not to override WP policy that statements must be backed by RSSs. (With 'counties', RSSs are hugely variable and ambiguous, so we work with that ambiguity and do not interpret it which is OR and which is what is happening.)

Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, regarding your remarks above about the fact that Essex had changed boundaries when The GLC act of 1965 happened. You cannot use that argument to mean the HC of Essex because you must go back the the 1889 act that separated HC Essex from local govt changes. See my long ago comment on the wp:Welling talk page about this. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The administrative and ceremonial counties places in Outer London left in 1965 were not the historic counties as they did not share the same boundaries at that time. Not sure I follow here. Administrative counties and ceremonial counties (called "counties" in the legislation) were not co-extensive and neither are they today. Neither of these are coextensive with the ancient historic counties either, owing to various boundary changes. Yet the various acts redrew the county map. Legislation cannot change history, so it cannot change the fact that Romford was in Essex, but the legislation most certainly did ensure that from 1965 it was in the county of Greater London. Some counties were abolished, and others redrawn. Surrey's headquarters in Kingston became an exclave (well not officially an exclave, but you know what I mean). And here is the end of the matter: Wikipedia guidelines say that we do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. That is the guideline. If you think the guideline is wrong, suggest a new wording in an RFC. As long as that guideline is there, editors should conform to the understanding that historical counties are, and the cluse is in the name here, historical. They are the counties as they existed for many hundreds of years, but the boundaries were gradually redrawn in the 19th and 20th centuries, and so they are now historical. Romford is not in Essex, Bromley is not in Kent, Croydon is not in Surrey.

I am grateful you have spelled it out, reproduced above, because few others have done so in the past. SB, there are significant errors in your reasoning. You are using original research to decide what the word 'county' means in various acts of parliament, including the 1963 LGA. As stated already, you need to go back in time to the 1889 act to see how this confusing use of the word began, and why. Further legislation, such as 1963, will use that meaning unless specifically stated otherwise. Put simply, yes, Romford was in Essex till 1965 when it became part of GL, not part of Essex. But Essex means the Essex created in 1889 and adjusted slightly afterwards. In this debate about HC Essex, you are referring to a different entity that just so happened to by called a county called Essex. If the 1889 act had called it North Thames East Region we would not be having this debate because there would be no confusion. Regarding the meaning of the word 'historic' - look in a dictionary. If you find two meanings, you are using original research to state that it means 'in the past not the present', as opposed to 'relating to past events'. I suggest you should also consider that 'historic county' should be treated as one noun. There are sources that confirm the second meaning is correct. This original research based analysis of what the current situation is, has caused the guidelines to state we do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries That is not backed by quality in context sources - meaning it can be overridden by an alternative fact that is backed by quality in context sources. Guidelines should be used to say that the default local area is the ceremonial county, that's fine. But, they cannot be used to decide what the word county means, which that guideline statement is doing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

But Essex means the Essex created in 1889 and adjusted slightly afterwards. In this debate about HC Essex, you are referring to a different entity that just so happened to by called a county called Essex. This is the very interpretation of the facts that is specifically excluded by the guidelines as they stand - the view that the historical counties still exist with their original borders. It is also a questionable analysis. The 1888 act created administrative counties, yes, and so we had counties that were administrative counties that were not always co-extensive with the historical counties they were formed from, and so we had this concept of administrative counties and ceremonial or geographic counties. The latter are related to the historical lieutenancies, derived ultimately from their origin as a sovereign creation by Norman kings. But the 1965 act makes changes to the administrative counties as well as lieutenancies, abolishing some and creating a lieutenancy for the county of Greater London. In statute, towns in Greater London are administratively London boroughs and also within the lieutenancy of Greater London[28]. What is left? Well, people may be attached to the former borders enough that sports may still use them. Someone born after 1965 in Croydon could presumably still play cricket for Surrey, or such like. Those are not legal demarcations though, but purely arrangements agreed by governing bodies of certain sports. The sovereign legislature of the United Kingdom has redrawn the legal boundaries, and there is nothing left that they can do. They have made greater London the administrative region and ceremonial/geographical county. The historic counties are exactly what they say: historical. It is the border that used to exist but that exists no longer, because the sovereign legislature of the country has enacted a change. The principle in the UK is that no parliament can be bound by a former, and that applies to acts of kings too. What one sovereign created is undone by the sovereign legislative body in 1965, and historic counties do not exist within their former borders. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The main error i see consistently for those arguing for "Historic counties" is they argue there are three types of county. In reality however, when we look at the history - there are only two. They argue that "Historic counties were never abolished", and thats true - but only because they became what we now know as Ceremonial counties.

For example, we have a list for the potion of Lord Lieutenant of Oxfordshire [[29]] - this spans from 1545 till today. So simple questions is, did Ceremonial counties exist in 1545? - well yes, just back then they were simply called "Counties" because there wasnt multiple forms of county. Counties had clear roles in society, and these roles continue on till this day - its true, at no point were historic counties abolished.... they simply became ceremonial counties over time. The reason we have two names with two borders today, is simply people looking backwards and noticing the difference. There was no point where "Ceremonial counties" were created from nothing, and everything transferred to them. Ceremonial Counties were always just counties, and they are the same counties that existed in 1960, 1860, 1760, etc. The only reason they now have the name ceremonial, is to avoid confusion with the Administrative county.

Historic counties sure never were abolished. They just simply had their boundaries change over time in the same way many countries have done. The borders of 1888 no longer have any relevance, and no longer have anything associated of what a county was to them. It'd be like arguing Prussia as the Historic country of Germany - sure it existed at one time, but today is meaningless bar to a few cultural identities. If Historic counties are to be acknowledges as anything but former counties, then there needs to be clear evidence of where new counties were created and the former continuing to exist. Otherwise all we have is the movement of boundaries over time, with some counties ceasing to exist - whilst others being created to take their place. Its right we refer to Middlesex as a historic county, as it only exists in history - however the Ceremonial county of Essex IS the "historic" county of Essex. All that happened was over time borders moved, and people made a name for the old borders given they were so stable for so long in history. This is why you will never find a source abolishing historic counties, because both historic and ceremonial counties are the exact same thing - counties, as we historically knew them with the administration removed. Garfie489 (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I will need time to digest the two posts above. One point though, before I forget, is the 1888 act. I am fairly sure of one point of law despite not expressing it as a lawyer would.We have a big problem in saying the HCs have been absorbed, altered, or been assumed no longer to exist, because the 1888 act specifically created new administartive counties. This means the HCs were acknowledged in law at that time as existing with their then boundaries. Otherwise, the new administrative role for counties would have been given to the then existing (HC) counties, whose borders would have been adjusted. That intentionally did not happen! The traditional counties were intentionally kept separate. I think, from memory, the reason this was done was because many rural constituency governing party MPs could not vote for a bill that altered traditional boundaries because their farming and village based constituents, who loved their traditional county loyalties would not support it. Hence, the compromise of creating new administrative counties. If that is all correct, that compromise muddle is the root of much of the problem. I don't have an opinion on what should or should not have been done in 1888, I am just looking at what seems to have happened, and I am giving an opinion that what did then happen has contributed significantly to the current mess. In finish off here, I think you will have a big problem trying to argue that the HCs have changed since 1889, even if that they have changed indirectly through non-usage - because 1888 statute law kept them apart from all those later changes. The HCs were not just 'not abolished', they were directly kept. To change that fact, I think there might have to be new legislation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You are right that the 1888 act created administrative counties that had slightly different borders to the lieutenancies - the ceremonial counties. That was the act that created this second definition of county that we have. The reason was that county boundaries were running through the middle of large urban districts, sometimes down the middle of streets. The intention was to avoid people switching county and administration when overtaking. (okay, I jest. In fact it was simply an arrangement to keep the urban administration more consistent). But that is not a contentious issue. the 1888 act created administrative counties, and we are all agreed. There are parts of the country that are not in an administrative county at all because the administration is handled as a metropolitan borough (and variations I shall not get into). Lieutenancies, on the other hand, have always covered the whole country, which is why they are referred to as geographic counties, as well as ceremonial counties. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, both reasons complement each other. Incidentally, I still call that Russian exclave East Prussia, but I will move on. If Historic counties are to be acknowledges as anything but former counties, then there needs to be clear evidence of where new counties were created and the former continuing to exist. I think you mean that to be considered as extant entities distinct from administrative counties there has to be evidence of that: to exist HCs must have a purpose and be seen to be actively fulfilling that purpose. Otherwise, I assume, HCs are simply imaginary. I agree that after 1889, the functions of HCs were chipped away in legislation to the point where now they have no legal role, with their only use being in clubs and people’s minds. However, that is a very narrow position to take, if not simply wrong. However, let’s stick to Wikipedia rules. What is relevant is whether there is RSS-evidence that HCs currently exist to the point of being notable. There is no requirement that their existence cannot be abstract but only in bricks and mortar or statute law. Evidence of their verifiable notability in the present is overwhelming. The current blunt guidelines dismiss that fact to the point of irresponsibility. The guidelines should outline how best to cater for the HCs’ current perceived existence that is entrenched within UK society while at the same time doing the same for other types of county. Sources – where are your sources that state unambiguously and in context that HC’s were ended? 99% of sources can be ignored as low grade of ambiguous in context? (And weighted against quality sources that state the opposite) Assuming that cannot be done, we are left with proving they no longer exist through lack of use: they are obsolete. As above, their current use in society and in RSSs is beyond doubt, making obsolete a wrong description in many cases (Chelsea-Middlesex=obsolete; Bromley-Kent=active) Your remarks, and the guidelines about the current existence of HCs is riddled with personal opinion, that is all. I really am flabbergasted this has been allowed to continue for so long in the face of countless objections from very many top-rated editors. Regarding the notable relevance of HCs to places in the UK, it varies from place to place and the guidelines, relating to mention in the lead, have to be fine-tuned. I hope we can do that and put an end to this endless discussion. A starting point for me is to removes the guideline statement that historic counties no longer exist with their original borders – it is original research and has no place in any guidelines. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Sigh, you miss the point entirely. Historic counties, still exist..... they are called "Ceremonial counties" however now. The counties of 1822 have direct lineage to the counties of 1922 and 2022. At no point where a new type of county created, and the functions of historic counties transferred to this new type of county. Historic counties are simply a representation of how counties used to be, they are a modern concept looking back to previous borders of the centuries gone by. That is not original research, that is supported by the lineage of law relating to counties. At no point was there a "right, historic counties stop here - heres a new type of county to take their place", (removing the administrative counties) there was always simply just counties - historic counties are simply a representation of what these counties used to be, with ceremonial counties what they are known today to avoid confusion with administrative counties.

The county of Oxfordshire has been untouched for centuries. At no point did it transfer from the historic county of Oxfordshire to the ceremonial county of Oxfordshire.... it was always simply the county of Oxfordshire. The only differences are someone in the modern day looking back to centuries gone by, noticing differences, and naming that difference "historic counties". That is not a personal opinion, that is what is supported by the sources and we have no evidence of anything to the contrary. Historic counties are only a thing, because people want to give a name to the way things used to be - which is totally fine. But that very, very much means they are exclusively past tense. Because things are no longer the way they used to be. Garfie489 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not original research, that is supported by the lineage of law relating to counties. That is OR by you. Where is the secondary source that says that? At no point was there a "right, historic counties stop here There was - the 1888 act, as I explained above. ..historic counties are simply a representation of what these counties used to be, with ceremonial counties what they are known today to avoid confusion with administrative counties. RSS evidence? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Sigh, this is incredibly dumb - to the point its effectively just being disruptive for the hell of it.

The 1888 at no point stops historic counties. It simply creates a new, parallel definition of counties for administrative purposes only.

We thus now, as per legislation, have two separate counties. Easily summarised as Administrative, and Non Administrative. These share the same borders, with the Non Administrative counties being the original counties that existed pre 1888 with simply their administrative functions removed. Thats all the act done, took some powers away from the counties and set up (confusingly admittedly) separate counties under the same names and borders.

Yes these borders moved over time, and yes some new counties were created and some came to a conclusion - however there is no evidence of a 3rd type of county being created. That is on you to prove, not for me to disprove. You are aware there is no evidence of this, and are thus abusing the confusion around it to further a political ideology. Its extremely hard to evidence that something did not happen, yet very easy to prove that it did - you are abusing this fact to try and push your POV, and frankly i am not going to entertain it in the slightest. If you want to prove that a 3rd type of county was created, thus proving the historic existence of "historic counties" as a separate entity - go and do it. Otherwise the fact historical counties are simply nothing more than a modern look back to how county borders used to be will remain, and thus i would support the view they should be referred to in past tense. Garfie489 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Friendly advice - tone down the language. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Letts of London

Hello. I have a draft ready about Letts of London. It is quite extensively researched, with around 14/15 references that are not primary. The article is here: Draft:Letts of London As I say, I have nothing to do with Letts, but it is astonishing that such a notable company does not have a Wikipedia page.

I have nothing to do with Letts of FLB, but do know a little about the brand and origins of the company. I have literally cited virtually every indie. source online about the brand, including finding very interesting references to early published works of Charles Dickens, which included avertisements for Letts diaries.

The article has been declined twice. I think the first time was fair enough as the external links and references were the same.

The second 'reviewer' was quite aggressive in her approach and used an IP address to contact me a number of times in a very rude manner. I have addressed hers criticisms here: Draft talk:Letts of London - Wikipedia. I note that this contributor is obviously is unaware of the cultural significance of Letts. Reading her Wiki page, it seems she is really only interested in female Finns of note. Opera singers in particular.

The article now has a lot more indie references than related articles: Thomas Letts and Filofax, for example. It is unfair, stupid even, to expect extensive online references for a company that practically went out of business because of the advent of the internet. 86.41.202.41 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't say or imply another editor is stupid. I had a quick look. You don't have any proper sources. With a couple of exceptions most of your references are primary fluff. Get notability established by RSSs. Read the reply by the person who declined your draft. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

As Roger and the reviewer say, you need to establish the notability of your subject and you need to do that in the article with appropriate sources - see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

Please also read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You're upset but you have to stop lashing out at the reviewer as above and you need to withdraw this. NebY (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You are all falling in serious circularity here. There are more references in this article than in Filofax and Thomas Letts article. What's happening is that no one is actually looking at the references or the arguments put forward in defence of the article. That is stupid by definition. As is a total lack of consideration for the fact that Letts does not have great wen coverage because diaries, to some extent, are things of the past. The average internet user has an FB account, not a Letts diary. This is all the more reason why there should be an internet reference like a Wikipedia article.

"With a couple of exceptions most of your references are primary fluff. Get notability established by RSSs. Read the reply by the person who declined your draft. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]"

As Roger and the reviewer say, you need to establish the notability of your subject and you need to do that in the article with appropriate sources - see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

Again, look at the Filofax article and then look at the Letts of London one. We all know what's going on here. This is not about integrity. 2001:BB6:2D1D:C200:68DF:6193:705B:695F (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

If I were you I would first make an account; you will then be more credible. It doesn't matter how good or bad another article is. You also have to understand the difference between different types of sources and why most of your sources are not reliable secondary sources. See wp:RSS wp:PSTS. If you do sign up and get a user name and then continue attacking other editors I think you will get blocked. In fact, you will likely get blocked signed up or not. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity and Infobox bloat

London Borough articles generally seem to have ethnicity tables based on Census daya as seen at London Borough of Camden#Ethnicity or London Borough of Croydon#Ethnicity. This is good information, prominently and correctly displayed in a table. However, it is also being exactly duplicated in the the infobox, which makes the infoboxes long, and requires both sets of figures to be updated, which causes inconsistencies. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The less information [the infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

I would like to pare the information back, but as this affects a number of pages, and as it might prove controversial, I wanted to get some thoughts before doing so as to the best approach. One option is to summarise the ethnicity info but keep it in the infobox. E.g., explicitly stating all ethnicities over, say, 10% and then using "other" or using a standard set of aggregating categories. A second option (my preference) is simply to delete ethnicity from the infoboxes as it is so clear and prominent in the main text. Third option, of course, is to do nothing if a consensus feel this information should be there and look like this.

Thanks for your thoughts. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It does seem to comprise a disproportionate amount of the infobox.

Background: Long ago, it was included in the infobox via some clever template work by which {{Infobox London Borough}} acquired the data from {{Infobox London Borough/ethnicity}}, which held all the ethnicity data for all the boroughs, so the articles tended not to repeat the data in the bodies. When those templates were abolished, the data was put back into the infoboxes borough by borough, perhaps partly as a routine part of the switchover, and I think many of the articles still didn't have the information in the bodies.

I see London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds and Birmingham don't include ethnicity data, Cardiff and Manchester have the high-level categories only, Liverpool has a Show button to display them all, and Swansea only has three high-level categories, which don't seem to be the largest and do seem to be 2001 figures. That one rather shows what a can of worms selection criteria can be (eg how many, above what level, aggregation of remainder into "other" when "Other" is a specific census category, not transparent to the reader, editors often ignore inline comments, etc). The UK doesn't generally use high-level categories only because they can be very crude in lumping people together and not addressing interests. I'm inclined to not include it in the infobox, especially if non-inclusion really is our general practice. NebY (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Sex Pistols

I have nominated Sex Pistols for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 00:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Edgar Speyer

User:Buidhe has nominated Edgar Speyer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Buses drafts

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I have made some draft pages which may be of your interest.

• Draft: London Buses route 17
• Draft: London Buses route 20
• Draft: London Buses route 33
• Draft: London Buses route 34

Please feel free to edit them and make them better articles! Many thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buses#London bus drafts. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Henry Moore

I have nominated Henry Moore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for William Wilberforce

User:Buidhe has nominated William Wilberforce for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Edward III of England Featured article review

I have nominated Edward III of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Iron Maiden

Iron Maiden has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Platform layouts, again: June 2023, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Boulton and Park#RFC: Limerick's appropriateness

There is a current RFC on a page that is a part of this Wikiproject. The RFC summary is as follows:

This article about two Victorian crossdressers currently ends with a limerick in which an animal being sodomized asks the perpetrator if he had mistaken the animal for the two article subjects. There are two questions for consideration: (1) Should this limerick end the article, as it currently does? and (2) Should the text of the limerick be included?

Any participation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much, --Jerome Frank Disciple 14:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

FAR for His Majesty's Theatre, London

User:Buidhe has nominated His Majesty's Theatre, London for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for His Majesty's Theatre, London

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/His Majesty's Theatre, London/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Harriet Arbuthnot

I have nominated Harriet Arbuthnot for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Station

Using simply the term "station" to refer to Underground and National Rail stations is problematic because there are police stations, bus stations, radio stations and possibly others.

W/P has reserved the use of 'Railway Station' to exclude Underground and DLR stations, leaving it with no terminology to cover stations that are not police stations, life boat stations or whatever with one term.

Citymapper has ameliorated this problem by using "everything on rails", but it is quite obvious that the Underground comprises trains running on rails and calling at stations and Underground stations are railway stations as distinct from bus stations or police stations. Using 'Rail' and 'Underground' (or 'Tube') as mutually exclusive terms is problematic. 80.7.17.42 (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

80.7.17.42, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations), which was agreed by the community several years ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)