Talk:Romford/Archive 1

American towns

Is there any evidence that the American towns of Rumford (in Rhode Island and Maine) were named after Romford? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.212.81.20 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 August 2005.

Romford has been known as 'Rumford' in the past. A 1610 map lists it as Rumford. It's entirely possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.23.255.111 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 29 September 2005.

East London?

Last time I checked, the postcode for Romford didn't start with an E. Everyone, including official channels consider Romford to be Essex. The Greater London idea is just a tax grab. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.23.255.111 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 29 September 2005.

Municipal Borough of Romford explains its transfer to Greater London in 1965. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MRSC (talk • contribs) 07:48, 9 December 2005.

Official channels consider Romford to be Greater London - i.e. you get to vote for Ken Livingstone. [or not!] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovetrot (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 April 2007.

Romford of course is in Greater London, but many of it's residents mistakenly believe themselves to still be part of Essex, simply because of their postcode. On the other hand, the majority of people from Dagenham understand their G.London status despite their Essex postcode. Why this is I'm not sure. Nearly every time I hear Romford mentioned on TV they call it Essex. Undisputed1972 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I always find if it a story related to crime then it's in East London and if it's something "good" then it's in Essex! --Richhoncho 19:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Nearly every time I hear Romford mentioned on TV they call it Essex." - Thats because TV news people do their homework, and know that Romford is in Essex! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.175.77 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 20 March 2008

Romford IS ESSEX, it just is covered by London Boroughs. Its the same story with Ilford with is in Essex but controlled by London Boroughs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spymo (talk • contribs) 19:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In Essex, just covered by London Boroughs? Please explain further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.17.189 (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you lived in the area you would understand. Some places like Upminster, Romford, Ilford etc. are now controlled by London Boroughs but boundaries where never changed to make these places officially part of 'Greater London', hence these areas having the address of Essex not London and also having Essex postcodes and not London ones i.e. 'E17' they have postcodes like 'RM' & 'IG'. Furthermore, they have Essex telephone numbers, Romford has never had a London '020' dialling code! (82.2.175.77 (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Postal boundaries are not the same as geo-political boundaries. A postal address is just a routing instruction. Also postal counties do not form part of postal addresses anymore. Your assertion that boundaries where never changed to make these places officially part of 'Greater London' is not evidenced by the London Government Act 1963 or published works describing it. Finally, telephone codes are even less tied to geographic areas than postal addresses. The E postcode area goes beyond Greater London at Sewardstone and 020 goes way into Essex and Surrey. MRSC • Talk 11:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying. An address identifies were you are and from, Romford does not have "London" in its address, please check it out, locate Romford Station or a shop in Romford they will have "Essex" in there address line! I agree there is a grey area in Essex where '020' is used and even where the Metropolitan Police are in place instead of Essex Constabulary (although its not as big an area as you make out, only a few towns), but this does not take away from the fact that just because an area is covered by a council that is classed as a "London Borough" it does not make the area London. There is similar confusion in the Essex town of Ilford, where though the town is very much Essex it is controlled by a London Borough. Simple homework people! Its also helps if people that live in or near the area comment!

Here is an example: Redden Court School, Cotswold Road, Harold Wood, Romford, Essex RM3 0TS (ESSEX)

Leyton Sixth Form College, Essex Road, Leyton, London, E10 6EQ (LONDON)

However, a lot of business in Romford write the address without the Essex and just use Romford, as you would use London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.175.77 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and the decision was taken at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) not to use postal geography as a primary reference frame. The addresses you gave are incorrect and should read, according to Royal Mail as follows: [1]

Redden Court School, Cotswold Road, ROMFORD, RM3 0TS

Leyton Sixth Form College, Essex Road, LONDON, E10 6EQ

The part in capitals is known as a post town, these do not correspond to the boundaries of actual towns and they only number around 1,500. London is one of the better examples of this as it only corresponds to about 40% of Greater London. Another example is the Birmingham post town which does not include all of Birmingham district but does include parts of Solihull, Sandwell and even extends beyond the West Midlands county into North Warwickshire. Which brings me on to the counties you included. These are postal counties and these have been obselete since 1996. Relying on postal counties means that Bath must be considered part of Avon instead of Somerset. Also the localities (Leyton, Harold Wood) are not part of the address. The examples of Leyton and Romford are interesting as they were both municipal boroughs of Essex until 1965 (see Municipal Borough of Leyton and Municipal Borough of Romford). What you are asking us to accept is that the Royal Mail decides what is part of a place (in this case London) and what is not. This is not within their remit and according to published sources their function is to devise a delivery system that is as efficient as possible. Read post town and postal county, these articles should give some indication of how divorced postal geography is from geo-political divisions. MRSC • Talk 16:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally the keen-eyed will have noted from London Postal Area#Origins that the original London postal district of 1856 included Romford (and presumably places closer to the centre of London like Ilford, Dagenham, etc).. Pterre (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of misunderstanding her, some of which beggars belief. The situation is really quite simple. Romford is in the London Borough of Havering, and is thus in Greater London. The term 'London' as it is used today simply refers Greater London and the City of London (side note: I'm not sure whether the City of London is actually included in Greater London, because the City and Greater London are regarded as counties for various purposes, but in any case the City is certainly part of the London region of England, which is one of nine official regions of England), so to say that a place is 'in London' means that it is anywhere within one of the 32 London boroughs or the City of London - therefore, contrary to what some people have been saying, Romford is 'in London.' Several people have been getting confused over Romford's association with Essex. Romford was indeed within Essex until 1965, which was when Greater London was established, and thus within control of Essex County Council. Since 1965, the Greater London Council and later the Greater London Authority have been responsible for Romford; and the Metropolitan Police, London Ambulance etc. now operate in Romford. When a person from Romford says that they are from Essex, I wouldn't think for a moment that they are actually unaware that Romford falls within the boundaries of Greater London - to be ignorant of this fact would require someone to wander around for 43 years with their head up their ass! Rather, when a person from Romford says they are from Essex, it is more through a sense of personal identity - for example, a girl from Romford may grow up saying she is an 'Essex girl,' and thus still thinks of herself in this way. Another example is when somebody says they are from Middlesex - what many people don't realise is that almost all of Middlesex has been swallowed up by London, in fact it actually contained the City of London on its southern boundary. So, a person saying they are from Middlesex might very well be from London, but it does no harm whatsoever to tell this white lie, as they are from a place that was originally in Middlesex. Yet another example is the town of Sutton, London. Walk around the town and you will see the name 'Surrey' in the names of shops - but so what? - everyone knows it is London. A final, less related example is based around where I live, in the North East of England, near Middlesbrough. We used to be in the county of Cleveland, but Cleveland has since been abolished. On almost every letter I receive, it has 'Cleveland' written in the address, but that's no problem; I still get the letter. Writing Cleveland in the address isn't correct, but it's a habit which shows no sign of dying here - everyone here knows that Cleveland does not formally exist anymore (or is very ignorant if they do not), but many people would still identify themselves as coming from Cleveland (even though we are a unitary authority within the boundaries of North Yorkshire) as, after all, the land which was formally defined as Cleveland still exists! As for the whole 'London does not appear in a Romford address' business, this is because London is not Romford's post town, i.e. Romford is not within the London postal district, which also means Romford does not have a London postcode, which somebody has also pointed out. Do these points, as well as the lack of a London dialling code, mean that Romford isn't in London? Of course not! The London postal district, as well as the telephone dialling code area, are these days almost arbitrary. For example, no sane person would claim that Wembley of all places is not in London, but Wembley's post town is not London, and it has a Harrow postcode. These 'problems' are simply because redefining the postal district would be, according to the Royal Mail, too expensive, though some politicans have expressed a wish that the London postal district be extended to cover the whole of Greater London, so that every place in Greater London would have a London postcode and London as the post town, though it hardly matters really, does it? From this, though, it is easy to see that a postal town doesn't have to be a genuine town. For example, London AS A POST TOWN is NOT a town in the sense that London is usually used, i.e. as Greater London, and anybody who doesn't understand why Greater London is neither a town nor a city simply isn't thinking hard enough. In fact, when people call 'London' a city (or even a town), or say that London is the biggest city in the UK, they are simply wrong. When you say London, you usually mean Greater London, which as I have said is not a town or city in any sense, it's more a collection of towns and villages, or, if you like, a county. By and large, it's a metropolitan area. If you were to mean the City of London when using the expression 'London,' of its size you could only correctly say that it is the second smallest city in the UK, for it is tiny. By the way, I have friends from Bromley and Teddington, which are of course in London, but are outside the London postal boundaries, and I have seen them write 'Teddington, London' etc. on letters home. That's no big deal. Oh, and as somebody else said, Royal Mail likes you to write the post town in capitals, though of course you really don't have to! Ultimately, you must understand that the issues some people have with Romford are in no way unique to Romford, as Greater London, when defined in 1965, took places from Kent and Hertfordshire, as well the three already mentioned (Middlesex, Essex and Surrey). Indeed, MANY places in London don't have a London postcode, but this doesn't make them less a part of London, and indeed most if not all of the 'newly incorporated' places in London (by newly, I mean in 1965) still have a 'London feel' to them. In fact, the term 'Greater London' has been in use for a lot longer than such an area has been 'officially defined.' 217.42.230.195 (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Glossing over your belief that no-one has been walking round Romford for 43 years with their head up their arse ;^), I was with you until I got to "when people call 'London' a city (or even a town), or say that London is the biggest city in the UK, they are simply wrong". By that token no large settlement anywhere in the world that has grown over a significant amount of time (are there any others?) could be called a city. I am sure most people are sophisticated enough to distinguish between the various meanings of 'city' and 'London' just as they understand the difference between the engineer who hoovers the inside of the photocopier and the one who designs nuclear power stations. In my (oldish) OED the primary definition of 'city' is 'large town', and the primary definition of 'town' is 'considerable collection of dwellings etc, esp. one not created a city'. I think that covers (Greater) London which ever way you want to play it. What else would you want to be understood by 'largest city in the UK' unless trying to catch someone out in the Tuesday night quiz at the Pedants' Arms? That (Greater) London has only a token unifying local authority (covering what many would regard as an unrealistically small area - smaller for example than Greater Manchester) is mainly a consequence of the challenge its power has historically posed to central government - from the City Corporation to the LCC to the GLC. Its many conflicting operational boundaries (postal codes, phone codes, police, local government etc) influence perceptions but do not mean (Greater) London is not a city. In most respects London is a much more coherent whole than most (all?) other UK conurbations. It only really breaks down into a collection of towns beyond the artificial constraint of the Green Belt - but of course even here most of the large towns owe their size to London - as overspill, first wave New towns, due to closeness to Heathrow (M4 Corridor), the Port, commuting, etc.

Perceptions of where places 'are' are very subjective and shift through time. According to their birth certificates, my paternal grandparents came from Clerkenwell, Middlesex. I'm pretty sure they would have said they lived in the middle of the largest city in the Empire! Conversely my mother, born in Crouch End during WW1, always claimed she lived in Middlesex, though the postal address was London N when she was born and N8 before she could read. Her perception probably reflected the fact that her grandmother's family had lived there since the 1860s, when it was still a rural hamlet. When I was born it was still technically in Middlesex (at primary school we still ate our lumpy custard with spoons stamped MCC), but I've never thought of it as anywhere other than north London. Arguably, loyalty to a 'Middx' identity within London is less than to Essex (or to Kent, Surrey or Herts) because Middx has not in living memory had a recognisable county town distinct from London. I'm interested in your example of Cleveland - does this continued usage apply equally to people brought up there before its creation?

Back to the plot, WP is supposed to be a reliable source, not a collection of subjective opinions. It is fine to refer to Romford's heritage as an Essex town, but today it is a London suburb, my Romford-born wife's ironic self-identification as an Essex Girl notwithstanding.. Pterre (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply :)

Anyway, it still holds true that Greater London is not officially a city, if for no other reason than because declaring it as such would mean that there would be two cities, Westminster and the City of London, within it, which is a little weird. Anyway, it has no relevance in this discussion, because GL in real life terms is a city, and to say that it isn't is to be pedantic.

As regards to Cleveland, I think many people are quite confused over the whole issue. There are doubtless many people who still think it exists, or didn't know it was a county anyway, or don't give a shit, etc. Causing the confusion is that Middlesbrough is in a self-named unitary authority borough, within the bondaries of North Yorkshire (as are the unitary authority boroughs of Redcar and Cleveland, and partly Stockton-on-Tees), but our police and fire services are called Cleveland Police and Cleveland Fire, respectively. The fact that Cleveland also lives on in the name Redcar and Cleveland is probably also confusing. Furthermore, Redcar and Cleveland and Middlesbrough are both officially in the North East, whereas the rest of Yorkshire is in the Yorkshire and Humber region. Junior cricketers play county cricket for Cleveland, also. Many people here would say that Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland isn't 'proper Yorkshire.' They have a point; I don't think many people really know what's going on with the county issue here, so people here in general don't care about counties (though Cleveland remains on most of my letters).

You say that Greater Manchester is larger than Greater London. You're actually wrong there, though there sizes are similar. Also, you seem to be suggesting that the Corporation evolved into GLA. Not really the case - they exist separately, and do quite different things. 86.145.222.89 (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are of course right that GM is smaller than GL - I was probably thinking of the combined area of GM with neighbouring Merseyside - jointly they have less than 4 million people but cover a considerably larger area than Greater London which even within its restricted boundary has nearer 8M. No, of course I was not suggesting the city corporation morphed into the GLA - just alluding to the tension that has existed between 'London' and 'Westminster' since long before the unemployment figures on County Hall and Fares Fair, and long before the days of Herbert Morrison. But I think we've probably outstayed our welcome here. Pterre (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

43 years with head up their arse? Well more like 20 odd years for some of the people that I know from Romford. Most of the confusion stems from the media. Nearly every TV report or newspaper article refers to Romford as Essex. The fact that Upminster resident Lorne Spicer, the irritating BBC presenter of 'Car Booty' talks about Romford in Essex just confirms their belief! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.20.42 (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly true that Romford is in London and that is an encyclopaedic fact. It is also true that a significant proportion of residents (not just the old but many of the young I meet and talk to) consider themselves to be from Essex - this is a cultural association of some kind that probably ought to be referenced in the article (BTW - the same is true for Ilford and all places between).DaveK@BTC (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Famous Residents

I believe that Steve Davis was born in Plumstead, he moved to Romford after becoming a pro. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickthecoder (talk • contribs) .

I thought he was a South Londoner too, but couldn't find confirmation to remove him from the list. --Richhoncho 00:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This section is totally unreferenced (as these sections often are). I think all the entries need to cite a source or be removed. MRSC 06:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

All the names are sourced within WP with the exception of Davis & Col. Blood. I'm not sure the "unreferenced" is going a tad too far, better to bemove Davis - it's a common mistake. Otherwise each entry needs to be independently sourced and that would get far too cumbersome. --Richhoncho 13:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles cannot be cited as sources (although the sources used in those articles could be). Fear of cumbersomeness isn't good enough reason to not provide sources. MRSC 15:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

History expansion - brewery

This article needs a section on the brewery that is now closed down, it is pretty important aspect of the history. MRSC • Talk 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Crime

Maybe the one element that makes Romford truly what it is is not mentioned anywhere in the article. The shining night-life of South Street (along with it's long string of killings, stabbings, criminal damage, sexual harrassment and drunken violence) is surely more than necessary to accurately portray the place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.34.9 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 June 2007

Havering is currently reported as having the lowest crime levels in London. [2] [3] [4] MRSC • Talk 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is true, and Essex has even lower crime rates, inflamatory and biased comments (often attributed to "unsigned") have no place on this encyclopaedic website, please bear that in mind before recklessly editing any articles. On a personal note, the list of criminal behaviour you provided could relate to any town in the UK!! Angryafghan (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Crime gets added in a lot of places, its obviously a common concern. I think it can be included, but with two important caveats, (1) it must be referenced to a reliable source and (2) the comparative figures (for London, at least) should be included - where it comes in a 'crime table'. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Urban area

I've removed some text about the urban area and wanted to explain why. The ONS consider Romford to form part of the London/Havering urban area and this is contiguous with Chadwell Heath (London/Barking & Dagenham). [5] Romford itself does not form an urban area or conurbation alone, as it part of London/Havering. Looking on a map, Romford is linked to Chadwell Heath via the A118 and Crow lane with continuous development (unless you count Westlands playing fields as countryside, which the ONS do not). In any case, I have changed it to Rush Green as this is actually the nearest settlement that way and will hopefully end any confusion. MRSC (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good article criteria

I want to get this article to good article status. Here are the criteria—

1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:

(a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1a}}; and

(b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1b}}.

2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:

(a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2a}};

(b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2b}}; and

(c) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2c}}.

3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:

(a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3a}}; and

(b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3b}}.

4. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|4}}.
5. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|5}}.
6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:

(a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6a}}; and

(b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6b}}.

I would appreciate suggestions to achieve this and pointing out where the article currently falls short. It is much easier to do this with more than one set of eyes. MRSC (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Romford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604095909/http://www.london.gov.uk/archive/mayor/strategies/sds/docs/bpg-nighttime-economy.pdf to http://www.london.gov.uk/archive/mayor/strategies/sds/docs/bpg-nighttime-economy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214003002/http://www.privateline.com:80/TelephoneHistory3A/london1916big.gif to http://www.privateline.com/TelephoneHistory3A/london1916big.gif
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608211546/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2921 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2921
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608211628/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6039 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6039
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608211648/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6042 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6042
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608211714/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6043 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6043
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608211721/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6046 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6046
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608211733/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6048 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6048
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608211742/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6041 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6041
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608193222/http://www.havering.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=18286&p=0 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=18286&p=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608213113/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=8760 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=8760
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608212657/http://www.havering.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=2372&p=0 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=2372&p=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Template:Tlx).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:UKCITIES

Noticed the article passed GAC lately. Just wondered if it was possible for some of the content to be cosmetically rejigged so that it conforms with the layout recommended at WP:UKCITIES? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Compliance with any recommended layout made by WP:UKCities, is not a precondition for awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I know. But I think it still makes good sense to adopt a standardised layout, if just for the benefit of our readers. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've updated. The differences were minor so it caused no problems. MRSC (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Former market town?

I think there is a distinct problem with this article in that every so often it states that Romford was once a market town, now I know for a fact in living here that Romford is still a Market town and holds a Royal Charter saying so - I wonder why this fact seems to be omitted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.169.55 (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Romford is an historic market town that has been absorbed by the expansion of London to become a large suburb. The article reflects that and the sources cited. There is no suggestion that it no longer has a market. MRSC (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Romford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608211323/http://www.havering.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4743&p=0 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4743&p=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123061143/http://havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=7989 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=7989

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Romford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927021237/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=2402 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=2402
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001043708/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10199463&c_id=10001043 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10199463&c_id=10001043
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211082200/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10166913&c_id=10001043 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10166913&c_id=10001043
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605032340/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10073303&c_id=10001043 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10073303&c_id=10001043
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100531064623/http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/images/maps-diagrams/jpg/map-4c-1.jpg to http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/images/maps-diagrams/jpg/map-4c-1.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040622133028/http://www.romford.org/ to http://www.romford.org/

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Romford is in London

The confusion needs to be resolved. Boundaries have changed. I've edited the article to reflect reality, but I'm making a note here lest someone decides to revert my edits without discussion: I don't want an edit war.--Leon (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• +1 - It seems a few places in Romford are going by "Essex" .... Is there actual proof it's in London? ... –Davey2010^Talk 19:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This strongly implies that Romford is in London, whilst this, if followed through the links, also references Romford being part of London. It's in the London Borough of Havering.--Leon (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

And people are still edit warring years later. daft. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog agreed - mad to think this has been continued for 3 years!. –Davey2010^Talk 15:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

FOR Info : I have requested page protection. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Ceremonial county versus London borough

• It would be interesting to know if the folk insisting Romford Essex is in London were actually born in Romford or have even ever lived in Romford for more than a few days in a BnB. I know myself and the MP for Romford were born and raised in Romford in the same hospital 55 and 53 years ago. Andrew Rosindell the member of parliament for Romford since 2001 born and raised and still lives in Romford should know as well if not better than anyone where Romford is. He has this to say on the subject. “Romford is and always has been a part of the historic English County of Essex. It is only for local government purposes, that Havering is categorised as a ‘London Borough’, following the creation of ‘Greater London’ as a region in the 1960’s.” So becoming a London Borough did not mean that Romford and Havering stopped being a part of Essex.Essex is an historic county with its own identity, a distinct culture, combined with social, sporting and business networks. Mr Rosindell continued: “We cheer for the Essex County Cricket team. our local regiment is the Essex Regiment who have been awarded the freedom of Havering and our Church of England parishes fall within the diocese of Chelmsford. We are defined by geography and not by local government structures which change regularly. A change in the administration of local services in the 1960’s did not end our town’s connection with Essex.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickGriff (talk • contribs) 18:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Romford is in the London Borough of Havering. The London Boroughs are what make up London, they are London. So yes, Romford is in London. Romford is in the ceremonial county of Greater London, so yes, Romford is in Greater London. It has been argued that the terms London and Greater London can be used interchangeably. The fact that the Mayor of London has authority over Greater London gives this argument some backing. Romford is in the London Region. These facts seem to confirm that Romford is in London. Stupid Rules (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Romford was in Essex until 1965. This seems to be certain. In 1965 Romford was transferred from Essex to London by an Act of Parliament which must have had Royal Assent. Romford is now in the ceremonial county of Greater London, but not in the ceremonial county of Essex. Romford is administered by the London Borough of Havering and above that, the Greater London Authority and the London Mayor. So, Romford is not in the ceremonial county of Essex and neither is it administered by any Essex authority. The suggestion that Romford is in the 'historic' county of Essex seems to be conjecture. Since Romford was in Essex, then saying Romford WAS in the historic county of Essex seems to have more backing. Since another term for historic county is former county, it seems that these counties only exist as a historical point of reference. Regarding the past, as in history, they may have use but to use them in preference to the actual working county boundaries of today seems illogical and bound to cause confusion (which of course it has). It is a myth that correct Romford postal addresses contain the word Essex. By checking any Romford postal address on the Royal Mail address and postcode finder website it can quickly be established that the word Essex doesn't feature in the finished article of any Romford address. In short, it appears that there is a serious lack of evidence to back the suggestion that Romford is in Essex, whereas there seems to be plenty of evidence to back the suggestion that Romford is in London. Stupid Rules (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• MickGriff from Romford Essex here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickGriff (talk • contribs) 23:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC) It would seem that the NHS is of the opinion that Romford is in Essex.Notice also that Romford in Essex does not have a London phone code. Maybe some people that are not from Romford in Essex but insist Romford is in London are being a little economical with the truth. Did anyone manage to read the quote I posted from Andrew Rosindell MP for Romford Essex making a definitive statement on how and why Romford is still in Essex. Please note Queens is a new modern hospital and even the road its on is quite new so there is no confusion over it being a historic address with a historic phone code.

  Queen's Hospital
  01708 435000
  Rom Valley Way , Romford, Essex, RM7 0AG

  — https://www.nhs.uk/Services/hospitals/Overview/DefaultView.aspx?id=627
• Unable to reply on the previous page for unknown reason. According to the NHS website, Havering is in London, which puts Romford in London. As I've said, CORRECT postal addresses can be found on the Royal Mail website. What a person chooses to write as an address is up to them. As long as the door number and postcode is correct the letter/parcel should arrive. For part of the 19th Century Romford was postally London E. That didn't make Romford part of Essex then and it doesn't make Sewardstone E4 part of London now. Being in a London Borough is what makes a place London. The London Boroughs are what make up London, they are London. Chigwell has an 020 phone code but isn't in London. Dagenham also has an 020 code and is in London. Romford has an 01708 phone code. It could be argued that 01708 (the part in Havering anyway) is a London phone code because it's in London, the same as it could be argued that RM postcodes in London Boroughs are London postcodes because they're in London (tho not under the London post town). Sudbury in Suffolk has an CO postcode but isn't in Colchester or Essex. So, the CO postcode that covers Sudbury is a Suffolk postcode. Andrew Rosindell also believes that Stratford is STILL in Essex, but offers no solid evidence to back this up. Both Romford and Stratford WERE in Essex until 1965 when they were transferred to London by an Act of Parliament. Now, both Romford and Stratford are in the ceremonial county of Greater London, not Essex. Historic counties are also known as former counties, as in no longer in existence. It's interesting that people who believe that former counties are still relevant can't agree on where their borders are. In truth, they have no borders because they no longer exist. Stupid Rules (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• I did he said. Southend on Sea is not in Essex it said. Leeds is not in Yorkshire it said. Dover is not in Kent it said. Norwich is not in Norfolk it said. No they are in London she said. Strange economy with the truth I said. Andrew Rosindell MP said Stratford is in Essex she said. Is that a fact he said when did he say this or is it a invention. She said no more and sat down for a nice cup of tea and a chocolate biscuit but the biscuit was soft and stale so she threw it to a passing spider that looked a little famished. The spider lived in the shed at the end of her garden in Edinburgh a short walk from the castle. Its in London she said look in the Royal Mail Postcode and Address Finder. Billy the spider said I think you are a little confused so she squashed Billy with a big fat book that she uses as a door stop. The complete works by Sir Francis Bacon and William Shakespeare. William was born in London she said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickGriff (talk • contribs) 01:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• You said Romford postal addresses contained the word Essex. They don't, and the address and postcode finder website proves this. It is the fact that Romford is in a London Borough that makes it London, not the postal address. Same goes for anywhere else in London.

  If you look at the House Of Commons Hansard, Local Government Reform: Greater London discussion of 17th October 2018 you will see that in his 4th comment, Andrew Rosindell says that Stratford is in Essex. He says that Stratford is in the traditional county of Essex whilst offering no evidence to back up the existence of such a county.

  It is clear that Romford is in London and not in Essex. You're unable to disprove this, and your descent into childish ramblings adds to the weight of the suggestion that you don't know what you're talking about. Romford London, fact. Stupid Rules (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Go to Hansard and you will see Andrew was using the Olympic Games in Stratford to make a point that everything is being centralised in London and and everywhere else is being neglected and for the record when Andrew said "Stratford is traditionally part of Essex" he was absolutely correct.Note the word traditionally. An example I give to you in an attempt to clear your mind is the London Olympic bicycle events that were in Essex about 35 miles east of Stratford. As for your insistence that the Royal Mail postcode finder is the definitive authority on whether places are in London or Essex my humorous little bit that you rabidly describe as childish rambling far from adding anything to show I know nothing actually prove your post code finder suggestion is total bunkum and indeed deception. As you dont like the government NHS saying Romford is in Essex I will present to you another official government document via a official Westminster government website. You will find that every school local to Romford is in Essex. I take a bow and await your call for a encore with a cup of tea and a fresh chocolate biscuit. https://www.get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Establishments/Search?searchtype=ByLocalAuthority&d=24&startIndex=50&Count=190 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickGriff (talk • contribs) 13:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• Traditionally in Essex. What does that mean? Nothing. So no, he's not correct, he's just made something up which has no backing. I've clearly said that being in a London Borough is what makes a place in London, not the postal address. It's you that has stated that a postal address proves where a place is; you're wrong, have been proved wrong, and are now trying to accuse me of doing what you're still attempting to do. No school in a London Borough is in Essex regardless of the address they may have chosen to use. Romford London, fact. You're unable to prove otherwise. Everything you say on the subject hits the buffers. Stupid Rules (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• The local member of parliament says Romford is in Essex,I think he would know. Andrew was backed by parliament in the Hansard section that you mentioned with your deception he was also backed by Jake Berry the member of parliament for Rossendale and Darwen for almost 20 years. The NHS says Romford is in Essex the government say Romford is in Essex and parliament in session says Romford is in Essex. Never mind them fools what do they know about Romford especially that Rosindell fellow that was born raised and still lives in Romford. Lets all look down to the sky and reflect on a world where black is now white by popular opinion and referendums only count if they give the required result otherwise everyone is a fool that needs to vote a different way. Just a little recap. Parliament in session says Romford is in Essex. The MP for Romford says Romford is in Essex.He is backed by other MPs. The NHS say Romford is in Essex in official government documents. Then last but not least the government says Romford is in Essex in official government documents. This conclusively proves beyond even the slightest doubt that Romford is in Essex. What do they know. Stupid fools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickGriff (talk • contribs) 08:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• The interesting thing about Romford of course is that it has spent more of its history outside of Essex than in it. From 1465 to 1888 Havering was an independent liberty with its own county administration. In 1892 it was amalgamated with the county of Essex, only to be removed again in 1965. The other thing that is interesting is that Romford was a special post town, so the postal service has always suggested that a county should be absent from postal addresses. MRSC (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• The MP for Romford doesn't know what he's talking about. He has no proof to back his statement, neither do you. The NHS say Romford's in London. The Government say Romford's in London. It was an Act of Parliament than transferred Romford from Essex to London. You say those institutions say Romford is in Essex because someone has written incorrect addresses on some of their websites. But the Royal Mail address and postcode finder website shows that no correct Romford address has the word Essex in it. You of course have rejected that evidence because it doesn't tally with your agenda. So all you've got is the opinion of an MP, that's it. And his opinion has no factual basis. In fact, the facts clearly show he's wrong, which of course means you are too. You've got nothing new or compelling to add to this discussion, you just keep on with the same nonsense. You're wrong and i believe you know you're wrong. Romford's in London. Romford's not in Essex. This has been the case since 1965, same with Stratford. I expect you to reply with the same regurgitated nonsense that you've continued to use, so unless you've got something new and logical to offer to this discussion i won't be replying, I've simply got better things to do than argue with someone who knows they're wrong but likes to argue for the sake of it. Parting shot: As regards the argument, i won! (Your ego won't like that will it, but regardless of the unfunny nonsense you spew back, i won). Stupid Rules (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Distances in lead

I made an edit in the lead section adding Romford's location distances to Ilford (4.6 miles) and Brentwood (6.1 miles), which was then reverted by User:Davey2010. Surely there's no issue with having this sort of thing, considering plenty of such towns articles have about 2 or 3 "distances from" in the lead, e.g. Chelmsford, Southampton, Ashford, Kent. --MetrolandNW (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies MetrolandNW I thought your edit would've been disputed however looking at East London you would indeed appear to be correct, My assumption was that there was going to be an edit war over whether it's in London or east London but yeah as I said you appear to be correct with your edits, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm aware of the social conflict between whether Romford is London or Essex but my edits were just distances, nothing to do with Romford's status. I will add the two desinations back (and while I'm at it, section out the lead because it's a tad too big!). Thanks again. --MetrolandNW (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

These distances are unusual for London articles, only the CHX distances are typically given. Brentwood and Ilford are arbitrary locations. When other encyclopedias give distances it is usually to relevant places like the post town of the locality or some centre of administration. MRSC (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I crossed the river and chanced on this Romford article. The editor's 'distance from' additions to many other articles are also discussed on her talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Romford is in London not Essex, and no, historic counties don't exist.

Romford is in London because it's in a London Borough. All London Boroughs are in the ceremonial county of Greater London which means they can't be in any other ceremonial county. So no, Romford ain't in Essex. Historic counties aka former counties (according to Wikipedia) don't exist. They're historic like Rome's occupation of parts of Britain. They are a historical reference, not a current geographic one. They are of history, as in the past, as in no longer the case. A place today cannot be in a historic county because historic counties no longer exist. Riteinit (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Romford is in London, yes. Romford is also in Essex. The creation of Greater London was for administrative purposes only, with the intent of creating a new council (Greater London Council) that would govern more of London collectively rather than just the inner part of the conurbation. No counties were changed or abolished - only local government areas were changed. London consists of parts of Essex, Kent, Middlesex, Surrey and Hertfordshire. Every part of Greater London is in one of these counties. As for your point on Wikipedia also referring to historic counties as "former counties", it also refers to them "simply as counties". The counties have these names (eg "traditional counties", "historic counties", "ancient counties") to convey the difference between them and recently-created administrative areas. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Counties were originally created as administrative jurisdictions. They have changed over the centuries. Yes, those former counties that are now in London were changed or abolished (in the case of Middlesex) in 1965 by Act of Parliament. Former counties do not exist in the present. You don't believe what you're saying coz you're very selective about which parts of London you put your unsubstantiated historic county nonsense on. Where's Stratford's historic county, or Tottenham's? Nah, you don't believe this historic twoddle either, you're just tryna say places you think should be in these other counties are via the back door. Riteinit (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Stratford is in Essex, just as much as Romford is. Tottenham is in Middlesex. Has that answered your question? I edited the Stratford article last week, by the way. That edit remained in place until you went through my account, I assume in light of the sockpuppetry accusations against you, and reverted it. Have you read the acts of Parliament in question? The counties of England themselves have not been changed. Wikipedia's UK Geography project states that the historic county can be mentioned in the lead. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Riteinit. Why not idle away some time with you on this warm tranquil evening I ask myself? 1/ Former does not mean no longer in existance. 2/ What and where precisely in the 1963 London govt act does it say that any of the surrounding historic counties were abolished or changed? And, what does it say about the 1889 county of London? Compare the way they are both treated, the historic counties and the administrative county. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia is meant to be a factual site. Hence why your edits to multiple locations and changing their locations should not be allowed to stand. Stratford, Romford, Tottenham, etc. are all in Greater London. As i explained above, they full within every definition of a current live county we have - and as such there is no debate required. Also @Roger, Historic counties no longer apply or are recognised in any setting. Given Romford is in Greater London both Administratively, and ceremonially - referring to the historic will only lead to confusion among readers. The Historic is just that - history. It is a footnote of a time now gone, and not the main geographical location of the settlement. Garfie489 (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

No dice historic counties flunkies. Former does mean no longer a going concern. Why haven't you put the historic county of every place in England? Why the obsession with applying it to certain parts of London? Disingenuous behaviour. It's simply a ploy to say these places are in a former place. It won't wash. You think people won't notice the reverts have gone from simply changing a places location to a different county to now saying it's in a historic county also. Basildon is in Essex. Why doesn't its page say it's also in the historic county of Essex... Coz it already says it's in the place you want it to be. Disingenuous. Riteinit (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's try this approach: the default place where UK settlements are, used in wikipedia, is their local govt area. Simple right? Think again! The names of all the many area descriptions are often the same, hence confusion and edit wars. When you rant on about Bexleyheath being in GL, that is correct because the default area is the local govt area (debatable if we should say Bexley, GL). That is why GL is the first area mentioned in the lead. The HC (a different type of area) can be mentioned if it has a significant influence on the settlement, which for Bexleyheath Kent does have. What's your problem? GL and Kent are different entities. It's like you saying Lewisham is in London so it cannot be in England?? You are getting muddled because the previous pre 1965 local govt area was the Municipal Borough of Bexley which was part of the administrative county of kent (not the historic county). So all that has happened is that Bexley local govt has shifted its view from outwards into Kent to inwards towards London. Consequently, the word London is more frequently linked with Bexley/heath and to Kent less so. (The postal town being Dartford has slowed the seperation from Kent in the public mind but that is another debate) None of this has changed the area of the HC of Kent. When we in WP say Basildon is in Essex we mean the admin area called Essex. What common usage by the public means is not clear but it is likely to mean the HC, whose name, Essex, is the same - meaning there is no tangible reason to make a fuss. All these endless debates relate to areas where local govt boundaries have changed. Logically I agree we should say here that 'Basildon is in the administrative county of Essex and the historic county of Essex', but we do not for obvious reasons. But, by not doing that we are not clear enough and that cements a confused line of thinking that causes problems when we get to settlements near a border, like Bexleyheath, where the HC and the LG area diverge. If you want to discuss this further, better to go to the UK geography project talk page. Alternatively you could continue making disruptive edits everywhere and abusing other editors - your choice! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)...While writing this Riteinit was indef blocked. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Legal status of counties

(This is a copy of statement above by user:PlatinumClipper96) Romford is in London, yes. Romford is also in Essex. The creation of Greater London was for administrative purposes only, with the intent of creating a new council (Greater London Council) that would govern more of London collectively rather than just the inner part of the conurbation. No counties were changed or abolished - only local government areas were changed. London consists of parts of Essex, Kent, Middlesex, Surrey and Hertfordshire. Every part of Greater London is in one of these counties. As for your point on Wikipedia also referring to historic counties as "former counties", it also refers to them "simply as counties". The counties have these names (eg "traditional counties", "historic counties", "ancient counties") to convey the difference between them and recently-created administrative areas. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(Later replies to PC96 moved here to avoid clutter - no meaning or intent has changed)):This is simply wrong. We have Administrative counties, and Ceremonial counties - though for London these are exactly the same. A county is formed by the grouping of multiple boroughs/districts/etc (ill just call them boroughs for simplicity) together to form the local county. Hence a county is the layer above boroughs in terms of administration. Greater London is made up of the 32 boroughs, whilst boroughs such as Brentwood are in neighbouring counties. Thurrock is a borough where it is ceremonially but not administratively in Essex - but again that doesnt apply to London as all boroughs are both administratively and ceremonially within the same county. The text which refers to this change in law exclusively refers to it as a county borough, and makes no mention of any location remaining within a separate county. We also know from other pages that Greater London has its own lord lieutenant, making it a ceremonial county with the same boundaries as the administrative county, and so no other types of counties remain to which Romford could belong to other than historical ones (ie, no longer apply). :::Garfie489 (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Garfie489, The text which refers to this change in law exclusively refers to it as a county borough, and makes no mention of any location remaining within a separate county. What do you mean by this? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger to put simply, the text states that the regions set out become part of the administrative county of Greater London. The use of county borough is confusing a grant giving its different meaning in most other cases. We know that ceremonially Greater London also exists as a county due to the definition of how those are formed. There is no definition of an existing county which defines anywhere in Greater London to be in another county, other than "it used to be this way". Administration has moved on, Ceremonial duties have moved on, and as such to state these locations are anywhere other than these definitions of counties is both confusing to a reader and unsubstantiated. We can state current evidence to show Greater London is the official county in multiple definitions - however that is not the case for historic counties. It is a footnote that historically these places were elsewhere, but it is not currently the case. You are right, the text makes no mention of these locations remaining in a separate county - because they never did, that has not been provisioned for. Thus all Greater London locations are in the county of Greater London. Garfie489 (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So moving on, is it best we list these Romford and other similar locations by their ceremonial county as the first and foremost information? Administrative counties are what affects the daily lives of residents themselves, but ceremonial counties are the ones most people know the locations by (for example most view Thurrock or Southend to be in Essex). Its also usually noted that these locations are in London boroughs - which form the definition of an administrative county, so to mention them within a ceremonial county adds additional information which can be both substantiated and does not add any confusion over location.

Ie. Romford is a large town in east London, situated in the London Borough of Havering, part of the ceremonial county of Greater London.

^ This would be clear, unambiguous, substantiated, and relevant - Garfie489 (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you seen [6]] this], which is the current guideline situation about counties. How does your suggestion differ? If There is no definition of an existing county which defines anywhere in Greater London to be in another county this is true, what sort of definition do you mean? And why is that definition important? Seeing as Southend and Thurrock is a county of its own, [7] are people who live there and think they are in the ceremonial county of Essex, ignorant? Thank you for your attempted clarifying explanations on a subject that is prone to confusion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I honestly dont understand what you are arguing for. It feels like we are agreeing to the same thing so it just confuses me. Thurrock and Southend are in the Ceremonial county of Essex, just not the Administrative county. Also what i am arguing is that the historic counties are irrelevant for the first line of the article. To state Romford was historically in Essex as the introductory line would be like arguing France was historically Gaul - this makes sense if it were a recent event, but this happened generations ago Garfie489 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I too am a little unsure of your position, but I will try to clarify now. AFAIK, because primary legal divisions of the UK are the ceremonial counties as defined by the Lieutenancies Act 1997, and that is, I think, the position taken by us here by using those counties as the default areas. That seems to be what you think should happen too. The problem is that this approach leads to innumerable exceptions and adaptations which causes a complete muddle and no uniformity between articles. A major problem in simplifying matters is, as you point out, defining what words mean. The word county can mean different things to different people depending on context to the speaker/writer. I therefore take issue with your approach that appears to take rigid position on where a place is. Further, I take issue with your claim that historic counties no longer exist because, I think you are saying, they are not defined in law. I agree that the now catch-phrase "X is historically in Y county" is wrong - I think it is nonsense for different reasons as well. So, it seems you are trying to agree with WP's guidelines, that you may not be aware of, but have come across the complete shambles that exists within UK place definitions. BTW, Thurrock and southend is defined as a county be the Lieutenancies Act, as in my link, which sort of complicates matters yet again if we are using that act as our default position of what is a county, meaning they are not in the county of Essex. I may have overlooked something in the act though so I can accept being proved wrong. I cannot see how any halfway decent encyclopaedia can leave mentin of Essex from an introduction to an article about Romford. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

So with regards to the 1997 act, it states the administrative areas for which each ceremonial county exists. For Essex (Ceremonial) it states "Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock' - these are the administrative counties we have discussed. So there is no real confusion as to what a ceremonial county and administrative county is. There appears to be no issue that could happen between articles, because there is an exhaustive list of administrative areas within ceremonial counties listed within the act (read Schedule 1). I see no exceptions where it is unclear as to what ceremonial county an area may be in - Thurrock is clearly a part of the Essex ceremonial county, but not the administrative county (being a county borough/unitary authority). Surely as with all political borders, borders change - so i take issue with historical boundaries because boundaries change. Stating it used to be this way in 1800 as the first line of the article has no relevance today. Id be very odd if the first line of Prague introduced it as historically being in Czechoslovakia. If people want to know about the history of Essex in Romford, thats covered well enough in the history section (pretty early on in the page). But for people living in Romford, they pay London taxes, with a London Police force, London buses, vote in london elections, etc - thus its important to state it is in Greater London as that has the highest level of relevance to the local population. Romford is not a historical location, hence there is no need to mention its historical placement first and foremost within a wikipedia article. Romford was formerly in Essex, but that is something to mention at the end and not the beginning. Garfie489 (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The difference between Romford's location in the historic county of Essex and Prague's former location in Czechoslovakia is that Czechoslovakia was abolished. The traditional counties of England were not. The creation of new "county boundaries" or new "counties" has always been for administrative purposes. I am not disputing the fact Romford is in London. Romford certainly does have a London police force, London buses, etc. This was the case, however, long before the creation of "Greater London". Romford, along with much of south-west Essex in the metropolitan conurbation of London (known as metropolitan Essex), was considered part of London long before it was removed from administrative Essex. As for "London taxes" and "London elections", council tax is paid and elections are held for local government - which is precisely what "Greater London" was created to form in 1965 - a new local government body that would administer more of London rather than the limited part of the conurbation covered by the old London County Council. The government stated in 1974 that "the new county boundaries are for 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". Romford's location in the traditional county of Essex is certainly not "something to mention at the end and not the beginning", and I strongly oppose Garfie489's recent edits giving Essex only a brief mention. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Ill avoid repeating myself, so keeping it short. However when making an introduction to a location it is important to state what is important to the people living there - and what is important to them is mostly administrative. If i were to introduce an actor, you state what movies they may be known for as an example, because that is important to know to know the person. Reading through the Governments statements, it basically reads that these historic counties will live on in peoples hearts... and thats about it. Now is it really important to know the local Rugby team plays in an Essex league because county level Rugby isnt bothered by administrative counties, probably not. Its an interesting note, but not the main thing someone needs to know about the place. It may have been relevant in 1970 when the change were fresh in peoples mind, but in 2021 we have kids whose Great-Grandparents may still have been in nappies when the change happened. It gets a brief mention, because it only has a brief impact on the local populations lives - it is possible some residents who migrated to the area are completely unaware of the historical connection. The sad thing is, many of those who had "Essex in their hearts" are no longer with us, and instead there is now a substantial population who would have looked towards London as their county - especially after 2012 when locals were part paying for the Olympics. An encyclopaedia is not about what is in peoples hearts, it is about the facts of what is truly relevant to an observer, and important to the locality in question - and thus, Essex gets a brief mention. To be honest, i dont see what is wrong with the 2/2/21 edit. It mentions the historic market town, introducing Romford as being administratively London. Seems to be no issues whatsoever really within that Garfie489 (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

You, Garfie489, appear to have touched on the nub of the problem regarding WPs treatment of historic counties. Basically, 'HCs were administrative areas and those areas have now changed as do all administrative areas over time', meaning, for example, Romford was in Essex but it is no longer. That is a narrow view commonly adopted on WP by people who like uniformity, distinctly defined demarkation lines and no ambiguity. I notice a lot of editors like this have computer and mathematical backgrounds, which is not surprising. However, it does not take account of other factors that have made HCs so integral in the mindset of British culture, many of them intangible. If we did take those factors into account we would have grey areas and uncertainty, words hated by certain types of people who prefer pushing buttons and filling in neat lists. That is why it is reckless not to mention Essex in a prominant position in the Romford article. A secondary concern is the not unimportant fact that the HCs have never been officially abolished. In fact the 1889 legislation made a conscious attempt not to do that, based on reading Hansard. (sorry, I don't have a link). Because they were not abolished, or even altered (new areas were created) it is hard to see how HC were changed into the administrative areas we have today. The only way to say that HCs were and are no longer is to use original research and simply assume that, which is what has happened in WP, and what has led to so many disputes and constant edit wars by a huge range of editors over time. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Garfie489 - please reply chronologically..if refering to an earlier post, refer to that editor to make it clear. Now, in reply, you do make some important points that IMO have merit. However, your argument is based heavily on original research. For example, when making an introduction to a location it is important to state what is important to the people living there - and what is important to them is mostly administrative. Says who? Are people uninterested about living in England because England does not create its own administration? What else is important to people living in Romford, in your opinion of course. And should an encyclopedia aim to tell the reader what the reader thinks is important, or what is factually correct, even if the reader is initially unaware of that (presumably why they read the encyclopedia, to improve their knowledge of the facts). Next, The sad thing is, many of those who had "Essex in their hearts" are no longer with us, and instead there is now a substantial population who would have looked towards London as their county - especially after 2012 when locals were part paying for the Olympics. - This is dripping with assumptions and guesswork. Next, An encyclopaedia is not about what is in peoples hearts, it is about the facts of what is truly relevant to an observer - correct, it is not about what is in people's heats, it is about verifiable detail. It is, as stated, not about what (someone thinks) is important in people's lives. Where I think your argument could be better used, is that the closer in to London you go, the weaker the connection with the historic county, which is reflected in RSSs, not what people living there might or might not be thinking. I recently was involved in a similar debate at Bexleyheath, where I said that there is a stronger case for mentioning Kent in the lead of Bexleyheath than, say, Lewisham, even though both are in the HC of Kent. That will be reflected in RSSs (as well as in the hears and minds of the residents). So, if you want to continue with your reasoning, please base it on secondary source verifiable facts, not assumption or wp:primary sources Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, i was replying directly given i was replied directly to. So first point on original research, i actually take the opposite viewpoint in that stating Essex to be important to the local population is the original research. Because theres no research to state why this is relevant to people today, and those editing to reflect that are basically saying "i think its still important to people" without really justifying why that is the case. From an administrative point of view, the reason why it is important to the local population is self evident - the administration is the one collecting the bins, organises the local police force, running public transportation, etc. The local administrative county (along with the borough council) represents the local Government, which due to their control over peoples lives makes them extremely important to peoples lives - that is self evident with no self research required. Meanwhile the articles on why a historic county may be important to the population basically extend no further than a few locals shouting "i can feel it in my bones", with no genuine research to state the majority of the population feel this way. What i am stating is factually correct, and not based upon the feelings of an observer - which is what would be the case by making Essex prominent as an introduction. The reason my statement on whats in their hearts is dripping with guesswork, is because the whole idea of historic counties being prominent is dripping with guesswork. Ill just quote one government source quickly to make this point

The 1974 arrangements are entirely administrative, and need not affect long-standing loyalties and affinities.” — Michael Portillo MP, 1990.

Basically, the changes dont force people to change loyalties - this is what i mean by whats in their hearts. If Scotland was annexed by England, the local population is unlikely to be happy - but from a factual point of view, itd still be England. Thats really all these politicians quotes acknowledge - that people may still go on thinking its elsewhere, whilst its really not. We see this regularly in disputed regions around the world. So this is why i kinda dont understand your angle, because i dont feel i am the one arguing for whats in peoples hearts - i am arguing for whats in the detail. Historic counties basically only exist in concept, and what keeps them alive is the people living in their borders who remember a time they used to be that county. To show they have any prominence whatsoever would require original research or citation, as otherwise we need to cite what can be verifiably shown to affect peoples lives - and thats local Government. I dont see how that is an original research conclusion to make, if you use Google for example to get county data - you get administrative counties, if you use OSS maps the same, basically every major source we could look into and ask "where are county borders" will show either administrative or (rarely) ceremonial borders. As stated, Historic counties live on in peoples hearts - and if you believe its the case the local population feel more importance to Essex than they do to Greater London, well thats going to need a citation. Because i feel the issue here is you need to look at the flip side and question why is Essex important today, and every argument that can be made is also true of Greater London (ie: It used to be Essex... well yeh, but it is currently Greater London). Garfie489 (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Romford is not in Essex

User:PlatinumClipper96, you made a bold edit yesterday which I reverted because it goes against the consensus (and removes the comment marking that fact) that Romford is no longer in Essex. You have now reverted your edit back in. Per WP:BRD, this needs discussion before retrying your edit. The edit you are proposing is misleading in saying that Romford forms (present tense) part of the "Historic County of Essex". It is correct to say that historically Romford was in the county of Essex but it is misleading to say it is currently in something called a "Historic County" with a Wikilink. This leads some readers to the assumption that Romford remains in an immutable Essex boundary. It furthers misunderstanding. Per WP:UKTOWNS as you quote, we should mention the fact that Romford was once in Essex somewhere in the lead, but per WP:UKCOUNTIES which you don't quote, all mention must be in past tense. I quote from there: Template:Tq. And also: Template:Tq.

This is not something you are just trying here, you also tried a similar edit at Croydon that I watch, and you also reverted your edit back in there too. I now invite you to self revert and await consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I waited a day, and have now reverted to the consensus version. Please discuss here to gain a consensus before trying your edit again, as per WP:BRD. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, the problem is how to deal with the multiple meanings of the word county. The current guidelines are poorly written and need an overhaul. It is a fact that Essex is in the historic county of Essex. The oft used phrase 'XYZtown was historically in ABCshire' is ambiguous and compounds the problem. We have had a few months of relative calm on this topic during which I have had an idea on how to treat this county problem. Most UK place articles mingle a towns history with its local govt, usually badly. If we stress the need for a local govt subsection in all place articles, just as there is one on history and demographics, much of the problem will disappear because it will be clearer what has happened over time and why historic counties still exist, and why in some situations reference to them is not commonly made. Historic counties would therefore be put in context and receive their due weight with correct factual detail. Following that approach now might stop further fruitless debates. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:Tq That is not a fact, that is an opinion, as is Template:Tq. It is, per our guidelines, a minority opinion and Wikipedia does not take that view in wikivoice. You say the guidelines need an update - you are welcome to start an RFC on the matter. While the guidelines remain as they are, we should follow those guidelines in these articles.

To be clear, it is not a fact that Romford is in the historical county of Essex. It is clearly the case that historically Romford was in the county of Essex (administrative and geographical/ceremonial). It is equally clear that it is no longer administratively in Essex and neither is it geographically or ceremonially in Essex. As with all locations subsumed into the county and administrative region of Greater London, Essex is now in London, and was formerly in Essex. You might say that the territory of Romford lies within the boundary of the historical county, but why would you? That wording seems POVy.

Wikipedia is a project aimed at furthering the dissemination of knowledge. There are widespread misunderstandings about these counties, and Wikipedia needs to be able to resolve those misunderstandings with clear and accurate wording. Saying Romford is in a historical county does not do that. It furthers a misunderstanding, and entrenches a misconception. As per the guideline, any discussion of Essex must be past tense. Romford was in Essex, but now it isn't. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are aware of the history of this debate going back twenty years, which is why I am spending time debating it with you. I will not waste time telling you that your view is original research, not mine. Where is your evidence that confirms otherwise? Any references you provide to show otherwise must be of the highest quality, be in context (not isolated snippets), and be accessible online to all editors. I am a little surprised that you use WP to confirm your view because I know you know better. To amuse myself while waiting for the jug to boil, you say 'you might say that the territory of Romford lies within the boundary of the historical county, but why would you?' So, with one breath you claim Romford was in Essex and with the other breath you say it is in Essex'. Clear as day isn't it? Now, the jug's boiled and my coffee awaits. What about my suggestion of regular local govt subsections? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not a matter of sources at dawn, this is a settled matter in the guidelines. Per WP:UKTOWNS, the lead should contain county name. The guidance says: Template:Tq so that is Greater London for Romford. Matter settled. Sources of impeccable quality are clearly available. Except, of course, that guideline then says that under History we should add Template:Tq. Note that this is not given equivalence with the county. It is in the history, where we are talking about the past.

And then how do we talk about the past? Well, per WP:UKCOUNTIES, Template:Tq. The guidelines are perfectly clear. Romford is in Greater London and it was in the historical county of Essex. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yawn, here we go again... I will assume good faith, which makes it hard for me to accept that you understand that wiki guidelines are irrelevant to any debate on wiki policy. Policy overrides guidelines. We look to what RSSs say, not what wiki consensus, wiki guidelines, or anything else decided by wiki editors says, especially anything decided twenty odd years ago. Where are your impeccable sources? Oh, when you find them don't forget to give them the relevant weighting relative to any impeccable sources that show the opposite, that HC do exist now. Jumping back slightly, I am constantly reminded never to assume the obvious when dealing with a herd of experts. The word 'historically' has two meanings (Check Cambridge dictionary). One 1 means 'in the past' - the intent of the phrase used in WP. The other 2 means 'in a way that is related to the study or representation of the past:' The dictionary example used is 'The film makes no attempt to be historically accurate.' Note - the film exists in the present. Same for the HC phrase, 'X was/is a town historically in Y county' can be meaning 1 or 2. Therefore the phrase does not clarify the current existence or otherwise of HCs, thus making it ambiguous, thus meaning it is adding further confusion. Moving on, my idea of improving sections on local govt? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:Tq Well if you felt the need to say it. Template:Tq, yes but this is an attempt to reverse the burden of evidence. We have agreed guidelines on how to write these articles and the edit in question wants to go against the guidelines. The burden on showing from RSS why the guideline should be ignored lies with those asserting the edit. Also, I question whether this is being prosecuted in the right place. The only question here is why Romford should be described as still being in a historic county as an exception to the guidelines. Exceptions exist, but we need an RSS to show why Romford is such an exception. That is the only issue for this page. It seems to me that your beef is with the guideline itself. You wish to assert historic counties are immutable and that once a place has been in one it will forever more be in that historic county (or have I misunderstood you?) If you wish to assert this view on pages, you need to make the case to change the guidelines. Open an RFC or at least a discussion on the guideline pages themselves and prosecute your case there with reference to reliable sources. If the guidelines change then pages can be edited in line with the new guidelines.

Just to answer your request for impeccable sources that Romford is in the ceremonial county of Greater London: no, I won't provide them, because that is not the edit in question. The contested edit is that Romford is (present tense) in a historic county of Essex. That edit is contrary to the guidelines, and so that is what we need sourcing for.

Those are the only two options here. Change the guidelines or show why Romford is an exception from the guidelines, with RSS. The burden of proof lies with yourself and User:PlatinumClipper96. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

"fundamental part of this guide is to reaffirm the long established position that we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries." Firstly if you want to look up historical records for Essex, you would go to the Essex Records office, where you would find that it covers the traditional / historic county and not the modern county. Essex County Cricket club is another example of an organisation using Essex to mean the historic county.

I don't see how, logically, an historic county can cease to exist. Once a boundary has been defined, how can it be undefined? What is the Essex in Essex County Cricket Club if the historic county has ceased to exist? Does Essex CC have to define its own borders by means of rivers, etc?

Cf 'former postal counties' has a FPC ceased to exist? It's a concept and concepts can't cease to exist. 82.46.163.160 (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@82.46.163.160 Essex County cricket club is a private organisation.... they can call it what they like. If they wanted to, they could call the area north of the Thames "Kent" and there's nothing anyone could do about it as its their right to do so.

Also worth noting, historic counties haven't ceased to exist - they simply no longer exist with their historic borders. The historic counties became what we know today as ceremonial counties over time. What we know as historic counties today are simply a way of looking into the past of how "Geographic counties" used to be, rather than looking up a modern border of historic counties. Garfie489 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This topic should be discussed on the uk geography/counties talk page. A problem has been that whenever this topic comes up it is usually debated in the talk page of a particular place, and then gets lost. My gripe is with the guidelines that state that HC no longer exist. That is a gross error of fact that creates very many complications throughout countless articles, Romford now being just one of them. Evidence they still exist? Here is the usual reply to that: turn the question around - show us when where and how they were ever ended. In fact, if you go back to the 1889 act that sort of began this problem (you could go back to earlier events but 1889 will do for now) then the historic counties were not just 'not ended' but they were specifically kept intact (by the creation of new and distinct units called administrative counties. There relevance to any given place varies on a case by case basis. The closest we can get to saying the HC no longer exists is to say , for a given place, it is obsolete, ie not officially ended but no longer of any practical relevance. But, for other places the HC is very relevant. The blanket statement in the guidelines that the HC no longer exist, as well as being wrong, makes no effort to cater for the various nuances of relevance throughout the UK. I am still perplexed by editors who seemingly fail to grasp that a place can be in more than one place at the same time: Romford is in GL; is in HC Essex; is in England; is in the UK. It often looks as if some editors think people like me are trying to pretend that Greater London doesn't really exist (in any of its meanings). It is correct to say that Romford was in Essex but is now in GL, but only if we are talking about local govt units. That qualifier is rarely used so we end up with the ambiguous phrase that Romford was in Essex but is now in GL.Roger 8 Roger

Template:Ping and Template:Ping apologies for not getting back sooner. Sirfurboy, I reverted your revert as it undid a number of changes that were not related to the issue you are raising. If you had solely undone changes relating to the issue you are raising, as you did to my edits at Ilford, Leytonstone and Beckton, I would not have done so (and have not undone your changes to these articles, which addressed this specific part of my edits only). I do my best to abide by WP:BRD, and often find myself reminding editors of this process.

The comment "marking that fact" that you mentioned is to address the vast number of editors that have changed the primary descriptor of Romford's location to Essex. It says Template:Tq The primary descriptor of this article *should* be east London, and the primary county mentioned as a geographical descriptor *should* be the current ceremonial county/administrative area in which it is located - Greater London. I removed this note as my edit reintroduced Essex to the lead as the location's historic county, as stated in WP:UKTOWNS guidance, and there had not been any attempt to change the primary descriptor.

Whether your view is, or consensus is, that the historic counties were abolished (I would argue they were not), the wording "is in the historic county of", in the present tense, would not be incorrect or misleading, as "historic county" refers to the definition of the counties according to historical traditions (i.e. the areas which served as lieutenancy areas and the sole definition of "the counties" before the Local Government Act 1888). Even if changes to local government areas did did abolish the traditional/historic counties, the meaning of "historic county" would remain the same. The past-tense wording "was in the historic county of", which you have previously proposed, would imply that the traditional counties were distinguished from other definitions of the counties as being the "historic" ones before there were any other types of county from which to distinguish them. The Government itself, and plenty of reliable sources, many of which originate from Government webpages and documents, use the present tense to refer to historic counties.

The guidance you cite is WP:UKCOUNTIES, for county articles. I agree with Roger 8 Roger that the wording here is poor. I would not agree that there is consensus that historic counties do not exist within their former boundaries. More recent discussion about this issue, which this guidance long predates, does not display any such consensus. These county article guidelines are indeed outdated, and, as you, Sirfurboy, said, some form of discussion about these guidelines specifically may be an option. WP:UKTOWNS, however, is the guidance for articles about settlements. It states that the lead should include the historic county. It does not instruct editors to use a certain tense, or to include it in a specific part of the lead. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:Tq - But you didn't. You reverted in your challenged edit in its entirety as soon as you got here again, and without gaining any kind of consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, I did. I'm not sure you've properly read my response here or my edit summary. Some of your reverts (here and on other articles - WP:HOUNDING following my Croydon edit?) had an effect on more than just the issue you are raising. I invited you to specifically undo the bold changes you actually raised an issue with. Unless you disagree with the other changes made, of course, in which case I would invite you to discuss them here. By the way, do you wish to address any of the points I have raised/take part in this discussion? PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

If you think there is hounding going on (| rather than an attempt to correct a series of related errors on Wikipedia, regardless of who made the errors]) then you will raise that at ANI and not here. On this page, you are clearly edit warring. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

As a quick aside, this discussion has just been mentioned at Bexleyheath, by a named editor who has had 54 edits since joining in 2008. I suspect that editor is part of an long ongoing campaign against me by one or more editors, involving blocks, socks, trickery and guise, which I try to ignore, but my point is that this HC is embedded throughout uk place name articles and it only takes one minor debate somewhere to trigger an outbreak somewhere else. talk

I suggested to Sirfurboy that she open a debate at ukgeog/counties to have guidelines re-written. That will be the place to debate this (sorry for not supplying an exact link). I suggest the debate is not about whether of not to keep the existing guidelines but assume they are now out of date and instead treat it as starting again from scratch. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger link to the relevant talk page is here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties.

So looks like Garfie489 is back. Now this is an editor that shows little regard for the guidelines, and would remove historic counties from article leads, writing "historic county was removed because there is no evidence of relevance".

Their reply to Justgravy's nearly 2-year-old comment on the Bexleyheath talk page reminds me of the correspondence between the sock account 'Riteinit' and Justgravy, discussing the same articles last year [8]. May be worth an SPI to see if Garfie489 is linked to the Riteinit sock - SPI here. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Roger, you keep complaining about the guidelines. Now you even say that you "assume they are out of date" as if your assumption justifies you and others breaching them, and as if that assumption does not spring from the desire of you and other promulgators of historic counties to breach the guidelines. When have you ever launched an RFC to change the guidelines? NebY (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

As I have said before, if a rule, wherever it is, is constantly being breached by many different people, there is something wrong with the rule, not the people breaching it. That truism applies everywhere, including wikipedia. The HCs guidelines have been breached regularly over 20 years by many editors, not just me. There are ways to stop these endless breaches: move to North Korea, change the guidelines or speak to Vladimir Putin. Worth noting I think is the way the Londonderry situation is handled, a problem no less contentious. Derry for city, Londonderry for county. There are infrequent breaches or edit wars. Why? Because it accepted by the overwhelming majority of editors which means the guideline works. Similarly, the Thatcherite poll tax: what happened, it was quoshed, re-thought and was reborn in a workable adaptation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Your "truism" is blatantly false. The laws on burglary are constantly breached but are not therefore relaxed. The laws on speeding, drink-driving, use of mobile phones when driving and so on are still breached, but this has not led to relaxation of the laws; they have been made progressively stricter and enforcement stepped up. If you want the guidelines changed or removed, you should straightforwardly and sincerely make the attempt, directly and without filibustering out of fear or even the realistic assessment that if you put such a proposal forward, it would be rejected. NebY (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, at what point does something actually get done about trolls such as this? - near enough every location you randomly look at has had edit wars purely responsible to a few individuals that care not for citation, guidelines, nor matter of fact - and instead aim to pursue a political agenda through edit wars all around localities that are likely too unimportant to cause significant attention. You dont see these kind of edit wars in locations like Stratford, which would cause significantly more attention were the "historical county" brigade to edit war it. Instead its just random towns, places, and locations that likely rarely have well intentioned edits are regularly being targeted by these few individuals to spread misinformation. The guidelines are clear, the information is clear, and whats important now is to ensure these articles represent the most relevant information first and foremost to a reader so they can get clear information without confusion. Its getting to the point some higher action needs to be taken against these individuals, as individually editing each article theyve damaged - and the resulting talk pages for each, could take literal decades to fix at this rate. Unfortunately Romford, and many locations like it are being attacked by a political ideology - and have been for years. So, what do we do? Garfie489 (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Garfie489, stable lead wording for the Stratford article was "Stratford is a town in east London, England, within the ceremonial county of Greater London and the historic county of Essex" until this HC discussion started and Sirfurboy began a series of edits removing, or reducing the prominence of, historic county info. You are making strong accusations about editors here. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Strong accusations, but given i literally just went to a random location (Chingford) and found you personally edit warring over the past few months on this randomly chosen article at the first attempt - seems to be substantiated. Why Chingford - well David Beckham was in the news this morning so guess thats why it came to mind. But the fact i can go to random articles and find you and specific other editors doing the same old tactics of edit warring to no end until the potential contributors simply give up from editing.... these strong accusations should certainly be looked into. Historic counties are not relevant to peoples day to day lives within an area - they belong in history, not as the lead sentence for a location. History is important to introduce for sure, but not in the same sentence as modern day, and not as the lead. Garfie489 (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually the guideline does say historic county should be mentioned in the lead if different from current county. You are right, though, that it does not say it should be in the first sentence, and if we read any implied order into the bulleting on WP:UKTOWNS it should not be, and would come after population in a paragraph about history. Historic county should come with a brief paragraph about historical roots / founding. Note that the guideline does not indicate that we use the term "historic county" or link to it. In general, I see no problem with using the term if we do so appropriately, but the lead as we have it now is compliant:

Template:Tq2

Here we are making it clear that Romford was in the historic county of Essex. That complies with the guidelines. An edit that says Romford is in the county of Essex is wrong and so an edit that says it is in the historic county of Essex is clearly misleading, and although PC96 argues that readers understand, it is clear that PC96's own view is that Romford remains in this extant thing called a historical county, which the guidelines for writing about counties specifically tell us we should not assert in wikivoice. Although that is PC96's preferred wording, it is a clear case of POV directing the edit. It does confuse. In my own experience I have had people telling me that places are still in "historical counties", and I have had Wikipedia pages pointed out as a source for this confusion.

Do historical counties still exist in their original borders? That is simply not a question for this page, nor any article page, and I have told both editors asserting these edits that the correct place to have that discussion is as an RFC on the guidelines pages themselves. I will ignore any protestation on article pages that they still exist, because the matter is, for now, a settled one. Wikipedia guidelines are clear that in wikivoice we do not assert they still exist. A page that says Romford was a town in Essex complies with those guidelines, and a page that says Romford is in the historical county of Essex does not. The discussion is not for here or any article page, and the edit warring to insert or maintain pages that contravene the guidelines needs to stop. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I do entirely agree with you. Just want to make the note i have no issue with historic counties being mentioned in context, and in the correct place - it's just the edit wars from certain users seem to consistently prevent that. Personally the Romford article is completely fine - Chingford however is confusing mentioning two different counties back to back. I was simply raising Chingford as i was accused of "strong claims" and the fact i can just go to random locations on a whim and back up the claims i was making without effort is a separate point thats unrelated to this talk page as you say. Do appreciate your efforts however, and you are likely much better with these systems than i am - so let me know if things go any further. Garfie489 (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

NebY, I submit your reasoning is flawed, and like the other specious phrase that Romford was historically in Essex, it fails on closer examination. The guidelines don't work because they are wrong and are full of illogical consequences; the poll tax didn't work because many people thought it was unfair and resisted paying it; locking people up for burglaries works because it is accepted as fair by almost everyone, burglars included. What would be unfair and cause the justice system to fail is if the penalty were, say, decapitation. You are comparing apples with pears. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:Tq Don't dodge and filibuster. If you want the guidelines scrapped or changed, start an RFC. NebY (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@NebY, in your most recent edit to the Romford article, you claim Template:Tq. I would disagree that any such consensus has been established here. I would disagree that inserting the historic county of Essex into the first paragraph violates the guidelines you cite. I would suggest the new wording, which instead reads Template:Tq is in contrast to the guidelines. It merely states that Romford was in Essex, not that Essex is the historic county. There are plenty of abolished counties that are not historic counties that settlements once formed part of. Avon, for instance, is not a historic county. It also implies Romford is no longer a market town, which is incorrect. The guidelines you cite also do not state that the historic county should be mentioned in a specific part of the lead - just that it should form part of the lead. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This is novel. Not your claim to have read all the words of the guidelines but not in the right order, as opposed to finding fault with the guidelines, but your claim that the words "historic county" must be used, otherwise readers won't know Essex is a "historic county". The article is of course about Romford not Essex, but there's something more fundamental here.

Template:U's lead is exemplary. It summarises the article in flowing text that's easily assimilated by the reader and allows them to choose whether to spend more time on the article or go elsewhere. It has no agenda or propaganda purpose; it is not part of a campaign for due recognition of or perpetuating the memory of anything. Instead MRSC displays care and respect for the readers. Please don't struggle to find a way that readers could, if so inclined and if not reading the body of the article, draw an arguable inference (whether or not Romford is technically a market town now, that no longer has the characterising significance it had); that way lies the madness of trying to cram the entire body into the lead. Rather, recognise, embrace and learn from the improvement. NebY (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort by MRSC which is clearly attempting to reach some sort of acceptable wording but unfortunately it doesn't work - too much weight on the Liberty, as well as continuing use the ambiguous term "historically". I think it is time for a RfC on guideline amendments as suggested by others. I will see what I can do but just now is not possible for me. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

SirfurBoy, can we keep comments in date order pls? I refer now to your comments higher up. Do you accept that 'historic' does not mean in the past? It means relating to the past. The govt has removed ambiguity by using the term traditional instead of historic which is much less ambiguous. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Using "traditional" instead of "historic" would be something else that might be discussed in an RFC or discussion on the guidelines. I will comment there as and when it comes up. I note that many pages also have or had "ancient counties". However the approach must be a joined up one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Standardising the description has been looked at before. "Historic" and "ancient" have a particular meaning regarding counties that is sometimes misunderstood by editors. The govt uses traditional, which I prefer. Most sources use 'historic' though which is why I think that is still used. I don't see a problem getting a consensus decision to use traditional instead of the other words. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC

See here [9] Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)