Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:29, 27 December 2022

• WT:LONDON

	This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
London This page is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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/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 Misplaced Pages, 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 and ). 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ( ) for example. In others you have removed mention of "historic county" and the article instead reads that the place was once in a county ( for example). In others you have written that the place "was in the historic county" "until 1965" ( 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 ). 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. Misplaced Pages: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 ] 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 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: Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 ). NebY (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Vere Street, Camden#Requested move 20 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vere Street, Camden#Requested move 20 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

St Mary-le-Bow

Hi, I've recently rewrote, updated and added a substantial amount of content to the St Mary-le-Bow page, please can it be reassessed? Bellminsterboy (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Good stuff on a heavily-used page, I'd say it's ready to go to WP:GAN. One thing though, I'd remove the image galleries as they tend to lead to lazy use of images - most of the gallery under "Exterior" feels redundant, and the royal cost of arms is already pictured on the big image on the organ and is not uncommon, it's less interesting than eg the crucifix. Removing galleries forces you to decide how useful an image is, to decide "What am I trying to say with this?" in the same way as with text.
Another tick that I've removed from the article is "some" in front of measurements which is just bloat. See WP:Writing_better_articles and the exercises at User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing - succinctness is a real art and I constantly have to battle against my own tendency to loquaciousness. Anyway, good stuff. FlagSteward (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

draft article

could someone please look at draft: 2023 london marathon and tell me what needs improving? 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Way too soon for an article, as there's no information know about the race other than its date. The 2021 and 2022 articles was moved to mainspace 1.5-2 months before the event, when a significant number of the elite competitors were known. This article has no useful content other than the date. I imagine the competitors list will be released in February 2023 (or maybe early March), and that would be the sensible time to create an article about the event. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Historic counties, guidelines and the lead section

Below is from Surfirboy's talk page. He has a point that the discussion should be here. I will continue below.

Hi Sirfurboy, I was pinged so I'm here. I am also here because I think you're able to argue your point and discuss the issues constructively, unlike many editors on Misplaced Pages. I do not want to return to the Project page you suggest above - for this topic it is stale with rigid opinions set in stone. If you are willing to discuss, but not here, my talk page is free to use. I have a simple question. You say you are removing historic counties from a place's article lead because that accords with guidelines. The guidelines are . They say: The lead (see also WP:LEAD) is the text before the first heading. It should not exceed four paragraphs and should normally cover the following:

• Geographic description
• Name of settlement: if in doubt follow WP:COMMONNAME; use translated names in national languages where recognised officially or in common use.
• etc
• Historic county (if in England or Wales and if different from current county), and a brief paragraph about historical roots / founding

To me that is absolutely clear as day. I am not passing any opinion on why, if, how, right, wrong or whatever, about those guideline, I am just seeing what they say. For the settlement articles in which you have removed the HC from the lead, the current county, GL, is different from the HC. So, please tell me, why are you saying that guidelines allow you to do remove mention of the HC? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Roger, I don't say I am removing historic counties. The guidelines say they should be mentioned where different from current county. Guidelines also say that leads summarise main text so I tried removing them on a couple of pages that had no such history, and ended up putting in the history in the main text instead. But no, that is not my intent. My intent is to fix a minority of little visited pages that have been edited against guidelines and an established consensus largely unnoticed. But these are content discussions, not appropriate for my user talk page.

I will contribute on your page if you wish to host discussion there, but I would suggest any user talk discussion should be meta. We spoke about workshopping an RFC, and discussion about how you would go about the discussion is appropriate, but the content discussion itself should be either on guideline talk pages or the London project pages. There is an established consensus there (and my edits are in line with it), but any consensus can be challenged. We could certainly discuss on your talk page, but even if we found agreement, any edits we made against that project consensus would meet opposition. Ultimately the discussion has to be taken to the established fora. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

From memory, that guideline about the lead was inserted twenty years ago as a compromise to the HC crowd when the HC problem first raised its ugly head. user:Owain might remember those days. They were clumsily added, like IMO most of the rest of the guidelines about UK counties in that dim distant past. That is why you have confirmed another guideline about the lead, that contradicts the HC guideline, and requires you to make an OR decision on how this contradiction should be handled. So, in good faith you are doing what you and others have accused me and user:PlatinumClipper96 of doing - editing based on our opinion of what should be inserted into an article. Moving on, I sort of agree with your opinion though. In fact, I said higher up in another section, that a way to mitigate much of this HC kerfuffle would be to improve the history and local govt section, which is sort of what you are saying. Where to from here? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Roger, I have been busy for a couple of weeks, so just looking at this now. Where to from here? If the guidelines were "clumsily added" then it should be possible to get a consensus on a change that would improve the situation. That would need an RfC. The RfC should, I think, be clear in what it proposes, and why the proposal is an improvement, because otherwise we get bogged down in discussion and nothing will happen. Personally I think the guidelines as they stand are a reasonable compromise. We use the term "ceremonial county" where we could use "geographic county", and that is correctly the default. Do we need all that information to be specified in the lead? Well there is a point I am less clear on. At the moment we have leads that say such and such a place was (or sometimes is) in a historic county of blobshire, without the page ever mentioning blobshire in the main text. As such the information is uncited and unsupported. I don't think we should be citing sources in leads, per MOS:CITELEAD, but it is clear that leads should be summarising the main text. Thus for me, I would say if its not important enough to mention in the main text, it should not be in the lead at all. So I would certainly support an RfC that made that point in the guidelines. I would not support a proposed change that said we should speak of historic counties as though towns remain in them, despite now being in different counties. Although I am aware that text can be found in some places, and is, in English usage, acceptable, I find it ambiguous and unhelpful, and anecdotally know of people that have used such language to justify an intransigent belief that historical counties are immutable and perpetual. However that is just my opinion, and if you think a consensus on some alternate wording is possible, feel free to propose it and we can test the issue in an RfC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The vast majority of edit wars revolve around isolated sentences in the lead that say 'X is/was in Y historic county' and I agree there is rarely anything else in the article about that. Therefore, yes, there should not be any mention of the HC in the lead. A way forward could be a stricter application of the wiki principle that the lead should only summarise what is in the body. I would have no problem removing isolated sentences in the lead about HCs. If that rule were better policed then it would encourage editors to improve an article by adding something useful and of substance into the article. Next, there is a problem highlighted recently where HC were automatically added to all place articles, irrespective of their relevance to a particular place. This led to Bromley being in HC Kent, for example, receiving the same weight as Chelsea being in Middlesex. I do not agree with this one-size fits all approach.However, a well constructed section on the history of Chelsea will refer to Middlesex, and some will say that then allows Middlesex to go into the lead. I am not sure how to handle that except by simple consensus around relevance. I think reference to chelsea being in Middlesex would receive scant mention, even in the history section, whereas Bromley being in Kent would receive a lot more attention. Whatever, the odd edit war about what weighting to give to a towns presence in an HC would be much less of a problem than the current never ending series of edit wars. Third point, is use of is/are. This boils down, I think, simply to an editor's personal perspective. There will be a many editors who have in their mind that Bromley is in Kent but almost none that connect Chelsea with Middlesex, and very few, if any, who link Lewisham with Kent. In that sense, both is and was are correct. I wonder what would happen if we created guidelines to say that both are equally valid and left it at that? One point where we might simply not agree, is the current status of HCs, do they exist or not? I think the evidence is overwhelming that they were never abolished, but then neither were (most of) the hundreds in England, and we never have an issue with 'X was in the hundred of Y'. There are articles on hundreds where, in th infobox, rather than having the term abolished, 'obsolete' is used and the reference is something like 'late 19thC.' In terms of counties, more use of this term could be a way forward. Bromley being in Kent is not an obsolete fact, whereas Lewisham being in Kent probably is, and Chelsea being in Middlesex certainly is. Related to this is, once again, editors' casual use of language. I sigh in disapproval when I read the 'X was in Essex but it was transfered to London in 1965'. That is factually incorrect but is easier on the mind and easier to type than saying 'a local govt entity was abolished and a new one created...' Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Murder of Don Banfield#Requested move 24 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Murder of Don Banfield#Requested move 24 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink 14:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mr. Bean

Mr. Bean has been nominated for a community 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. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Project-Class London-related pages
• NA-importance London-related pages