Jump to content

Talk:Middlesex

Good articleMiddlesex has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 18, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
March 31, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Article improvement

I wonder if History of Hertfordshire has anything to offer us in terms of structure? MRSC (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I find the lead a bit dramatic for my taste... "forged in the Norse–Saxon wars of the ninth century"! In fact the tone of the whole article is a bit chatty. But, yeah the *structure* may be useful. Lozleader (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Ideally we need a GA/FA article on a former state or province for guidance, but I can't find one. MRSC (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tone has now been toned down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.162.31 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is a county?

There is certainly some misinformation with regards Middlesex. A county is not simply an administrative area but a region that has historical significance. So while it might be true that Middlesex was covered by the Greater London administration rather than a county administration the County still existed. Legal documents asked for county to be provided and there was no such thing as the county of Greater London. Even the timing as to the abolition of postal county address in 1996 is not reflective of the real situation as without a postcode the mail would take longer to arrive without the county than with. I accept that now Counties have been phased out but they are still used by institutions: [1] and the Road signs still had the county.

Most of Middlesex regions existed in the Doomsday book and there are not other locales in the UK with the same town name, so you wouldn't need the postal county. However, beyond this date the county is still shown on Greater London A-Z. The banks of the river Thames are known by the County names. The county existed for 100s of years but it still exists in some sense of the idea. As for people confused enough over Hampton Court... the boudary is set by whether it is the North bank of the Thames (Middlesex) or the South for (Surrey). The_Boat_Race#courseTetron76 (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A county, certainly in statutory terms, is both an area of land and an entity with which certain offices or institutions are attached. Thus a county would have a high sheriff, lord lieutenant, commission of the peace and so on, irrespective of its administrative/local government status. As a county Middlesex was explicitly extinguished administratively by the London Government Act 1963 and for other purposes by the Administration of Justice Act 1964. As a placename it continues to exist (and indeed the name pre-dated the county), and vestiges of this continue in the naming of the banks of the river for the boatrace (which dates from 1829 so was quite correct then). In fact that part of London has been in neither Middlesex of Surrey since 1889. "Such portion of the administrative county of London as forms part of the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, shall on and after the appointed day be severed from those counties, and form a separate county for all non-administrative purposes by the name of the county of London; and it shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen to appoint a sheriff of that county, and to grant a commission of the peace and court of quarter sessions, to that county; and, subject to the provisions of this Act, all enactments, laws, and usages with respect to counties in England and Wales, and to sheriffs, justices, and quarter sessions shall, so far as circumstances admit, apply to the county of London" [2]Lozleader (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
having dug out an old book: "Middlesex The Jubilee of the County Council 1889 -1939" there is a term that is used Geographic County - this is a unit that is still in existence Today even if it is not required on the Postal address. This is in the same manner as Twickenham wasn't needed on address with a postcode with TW1. Now the problem comes in viewing the region when there is no longer a need for a postal address.
The other issue comes to the idea of the GLC abolishing the County. Having read the 1963 act briefly it doesn't abolish the county merely replaces adminstrative body, nor did it create a new county by name. There were London Boroughs in Middlesex extant before this act such as Twickenham. Then also there is the issue that the GLC was abolished in 1986 yet the locales still needed to be placed in a county and this was always the same as the postal county code.
The real issue is that the 1888 Local Government act did not make the administrative body of county council equivalent to the county as Sussex, Suffolk and Lincolnshire all had more than one council without any obvious subdivisions. Therefore the change of the administration doesn't automatically remove the county in the broadest sense. I think the lead should read more along the lines of "Middlesex is a geographic county and a former administrative region in England." Tetron76 (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When the County of London was created in 1889 - Middlesex was reduced. The administrative county of Middlesex was explicitly abolished by the 1963 act, the fact wasn't replaced it with a new county doesn't mean it didn't disappear at that time. The 1964 act replaced it for all other legal purposes.
The current lead of this article states "Middlesex is one of the 39 historic counties of England" and "Despite the disappearance of the county council, Middlesex is still used as an area name". Note that historic in this context is the WP-preferred version of the term you are calling Geographic ("Geographic" is ambiguous as all defintions of counties are arguably geographic). What do you actually want to change in this article's lead - it already covers your point?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recognise that "historic counties of England" is the current preferred term but it is meaningless (all counties have histories). Lincolnshire is a historic county in that it has a very long history, but it is not abolished. For counties that have been abolished we should use a term like "abolished counties of England" or "former counties of England". FreeFlow99 (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is a county? And, What is Middlesex? If you ask the majority of the residents of Harrow, Hayes, Hounslow, Northwood, Northolt, Southall, Greenford, Ruislip, etc. which county they live in, most will say Middlesex, not London. Irrespective of whether or not it exists for administrative purposes people still perceive themselves as living in the county of Middlesex. To millions of people, mainly residents and former residents and their friends and relatives Middlesex still exists. To most of these people a county is just an area that contains several towns and villages and not necessarily a political or administrative division. Therefore I don't think Middlesex should be described as a former county. AlwynJPie (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton Wick

The reference given states that it was given a KT Postcode but doesn't mention the county code as being Surrey. I'm fairly sure all of Middlesex was in the postal county. Tetron76 (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A casual Google reveals:
[3] 1 High Street, Hampton Wick, Kingston-Upon-Thames, Surrey, KT1 4DA 45 High Street, [4] Hampton Wick, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 4EH, [5] Church Grove, Hampton Wick, Kingston-Upon-Thames, Surrey, KT1 4AL
Lozleader (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what was the situation when the postal counties were in force. From past experience anything pre-2000 and minor is remarkably difficult to find on the internet. There are places which use the Middlesex too: [6] even though it is using the KT1 postcode. Much of Hampton Wick is in the TW postcode. Postcodes only referred to the main sorting office and I believe I was told once that the reason for the KT part was because of the one-time use of a boat meaning Kingston made the deliveries.
It would seem that there is now a common, if not universal usage, so even if not technically correct it probably meets wiki standards to state it. Though, Hampton Wick was definitely entirely in Middlesex, also they wouldn't have been in Vince Cable's constiuency.Tetron76 (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense all along Royal Mail had a rule of allowing Hampton Wick, Middlesex, Kingston (upon Thames), Surrey being totally permissible. Read more books on the subject. Besides they are both now London, so thus alas, even if you are writing to Kingston (or New Malden) there is nothing wrong with writing, Kingston upon Thames, London. - Adam37 Talk 09:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issues with sources

There are several sections in the article that could do with refining but there are references that don't obviously seem to support the case in all instances and I am reluctant to make a change that may be sources contradicting each other.

For example the book I have states the first reference as 704 "in the Province which is called Middleseaxon" with an "o". Similarly it refers to the creation of the county system occuring in 900 A.D.

Another issue is the mention of steadyly declining population except at the surrounds- I am not sure what the source states with regards to this but it seems a peripheral point as there was no real centre to Middx after 1889 plus there is the whole change in population due to the War to take into account.Tetron76 (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Existence

Middlesex still exists as a geographical area and county. Only the administrative council was abolished. The is a boundary indicated by signs, there is a Middlesex University, Middlesex Cricket Club, etc. To refer to Middlesex in the past is extremely inaccurate. This needs to be rectified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.65.214 (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesex is a former county. The article states "After 1965 Middlesex continued to be used as an area name" and "Middlesex is still used in the names of organisations based in the area". MRSC (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesex continues to be used as a place name. If your article states it is no longer used as a place name. This is clearly incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.30.242 (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the article doesn't say it is no longer used as a place name. You have now introduced text in violation of WP:UKCOUNTIES five times in a 24 hour period. This is not permitted (please see WP:3RR). MRSC (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the article confusing. The beginning of the article gives the impression that the county still exists, when for practical purposes it has been abolished, and therefore we should use the term 'was' and not 'is'. Counties have a long tradition of having their boundaries altered. As such counties are really administrative areas, not geographic areas (by administrative area I'm referring to County Councils and their predecessors etc). County names are only used informally as geographic areas. Real geographic areas include 'the South Downs', 'the Welsh valleys' and 'the Wash' and are obviously not aligned to counties. Shropshire contains a wider diversity of geological features than anywhere else on the planet; if counties were based on geological areas it would have to split into many tiny counties, which it obviously is not. Therefore to use the term county to refer either to geographic or geologic area is purely informal. The use of county names in institutions is a matter of preference only, eg Humberside Airport retains this name even though Humberside county, an artificial creation, has been abolished, ie there never was a historic county of Humberside, and the name of the airport is not an indicator that Humberside exists, similarly sports clubs with Middlesex in their title do not suggest that Middlesex continues to exist in any meaningful sense. If an intelligent person not familiar with the old county boundary were asked to draw a geographical area based on the centre of 'Middlesex', it is doubtful whether his shape would reflect either the size or shape of the old county boundary; this is because there is no natural geographic area for Middlesex.

Let us call a spade a spade. A county has always been an administrative area, let us not try to blur the issue by using the term to mean something else. FreeFlow99 (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most people living in Harrow, Hounslow, Greenford, and other parts of the postal county of Middlesex still regard themselves as living in the county of Middlesex. It may no longer be a necessary part of the address but people see themselves as being in Middlesex. AlwynJPie (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that was the case which I strongly doubt it would be irrelevant as the county no longer exists.Tmol42 (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually most people living in these areas regard themselves as living in London! Have you actually bothered to ask all 1 million (probably more) of these people? Justgravy (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postal anomalies 1889-1965 and 1965-1996

My clarification reveals the postal choas at the root of many of the fictitious arguments above - quickly compare County of London to the postal maps of Middlesex.
Popular myths dispelled:

1. Boat Race over-fanatics (to the detriment of all the other serious events on watercourses in Britain) would really note: Chiswick and Barnes were never in the County of London that ended in 1965. They were in Middlesex and Surrey respectively. They are now in Greater London. Minor aristocrats may equally try to have written and spoken that Kensington is still Middlesex etc. but really...

2. i. What residents and businesses of Willesden, Tottenham, Hornsey and Chiswick (broadly drawn) thought at various points during the period 1889–1965 when they were in the Postal County of London (Postcode Area of London in officialdom) is irrelevant for Controversy and complex, undocumentable, gradual or sudden changes.

ii. In this period they were in Middlesex, and 'taxed' and 'publicly serviced and improved' by Middlesex County Council.

iii. Now they may want to believe they are in Middlesex. But you can't have it both ways. I offer up the fact of all places in Greater London being in London and the argument since 1996 is totally solved. Hence you don't hear it made.

3. The long-held beauty spot Hampton Court Palace is like its two Royal Parks who also claim by a placename roadsign or two the name Hampton Court, all traditionally part of Hampton, whatever this palace does for you it must copy whatever county since 1996 you insist on using for Hampton. (Robbins devoted 9 pages of the smaller Part Two (pp 217-363) of his book Middlesex to the Palace; Norden justly waxed lyrical about it and most Middlesex and London Regions topographers since time immemorial.) London please. They make it greater and carry on being grand on its outskirts.

4. i. South Mimms (rural/urban district) (Potters Bar, the appropriately-named high place of Ridge and its own countrified core don't you know?); Spelthorne (which includes Laleham don't you know?) and Poyle (the latter postally lost in 1995) now have non-Middlesex non-Greater London counties.

ii. The first district listed was lost from the county to Hertfordshire in a spot of shrewd developer leaning-on councillor representations which accompanied Potters Bar's rapid but low-to-mid density new town development which happened at the time, similar for the latter which went to Surrey. These were suburban with considerable open space relative to the east, middle, west and north of the former county.

5. Interestingly the councillors of the first area - a wide mound of gentle top slopes of the London Basin so much liked the sound of joining Hertfordshire outright as to make the postal system change in 1965. A bribe seems likely or similar.

5.a 'Royal Mail' adds additional credence to self-promoters who claim the redundant postal counties are more accurate than any others in history.

6. Monken Hadley was in both 'systems' lost in 1889. The residents of Monken Hadley became forever associated with Barnet for better for worse postally in 1889, and later become optionally Greater London, creating a bewildering choice of three categories.

7. Greater London is London, since 1996 finally! I write it on envelopes willingly. Yes Twickenham, London, Yes Bromley, London, Yes Croydon, London, even Havering atte Bower and Harefield. This leaves only pedants and the totally hidebound insisting Bromley is in Kent, squabbling over Greenwich being in Kent, Richmond in Surrey, Chiswick in London the list goes on forever and with three stages of arbitrary cut-off, all popularly based on living postal service advice which in itself is wrong on historic borders so adding further wonderful stupidity to arguments.

8. Confusion just outside the historic county

Hidebound residents of Wraysbury fare no better with their pre-mid 19th century (before post towns) county being written and spoken as it actually was, "Bucks." but then postally, Middlesex after its post town only — until being redundant in 1996. Its true and administrative county in 1965 flipped from Buckinghamshire to Berkshire (now only for very formal purposes and e.g. fire) which joins Slough (which includes Langley, Colnbrook and Horton) in being inappropriate being on the wrong side of the Thames but no less so than being on the far side of the upper tributary marking the Middlesex boundary, those knowledgeable of geography and history see how counter to basic river borders it is to say any of those are in Middlesex. Yet many businesses of manual trade and trying to humble themselves nearer to Staines there do: and likewise for the fraction Egham Hythe that falls under Staines postally. Likewise Denham!!!

Denham is great, you can now acceptably write it as it really is: Denham, Uxbridge, Buckinghamshire. As different parts of Uxbridge can have different postal counties.

Conclusion

Many people cannot get enough of addressing themselves in a non-accurate county, and particularly where the new replacement is further from London. Yet the opposite was a generation before true of Chiswick to Tottenham before 1965 who were far more rapidly willing to embrace their new status of London.

Now the dust has finally settled since the 1996 ending of post towns having postal counties, I logically now conclude that 'the address propagators of Middlesex' have neatly divided into snobbish it seems for its bulk (where now London) and anti-snobbish camps on small northern and southwestern fringes, with anti-snobbery becoming downright humiliating where used where their county is outside all Middlesex borders (except wide post town borders). These deliberately self-abasing zones are where the county is Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire or Surrey, yet pre-1996 born people insist on postal counties which themselves were never accurate and from that year became totally arbitrary so can be replaced with true counties.

The case of Egham Hythe, Staines upon Thames is a fascinating example where since 1996 sensible logic demands acceptance of the true county AND historic county. Only postal pedants stuck in the past would put the two varieties of: Egham Hythe, (Surrey), Staines upon Thames, Middlesex. Why ever not Egham Hythe, Staines (upon Thames), Surrey? One day Staines upon Thames itself will be commonly Surrey on envelopes.

Of such hidebound postal people one is thus always reminded of the Two Ronnies sketch of upper, middle and lower class. Surrey/Herts/Berks is superior to Middlesex, but Middlesex is superior to London. Adam37 Talk 21:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great additions. We need to make sure there is nothing in the introduction that is not also mention in the text, for example the term 'county corporate'. Just need to make sure that is mentioned later. I think the intro is a little top-heavy and includes some repetition. Just needs a copyedit and copying (or moving) into the body of the article. I'm going to try to fix that, but I might not have enough time.
I've made some changes, to clarify some things:
  1. The creation of the County of London in 1889 had no impact on Royal Mail
  2. The City of London was already a county corporate before 1889, the 1888 act made County of London, Middlesex and City of London all "counties for other purposes".
  3. In 1965 Middlesex split to three counties (Surrey/Greater London/Hertfordshire). The text implied that some land went to Berkshire in 1965, but that only happened later because of other changes.
There are a few other things, but those are the ones I immediately noticed. MRSC (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. 1. No impact "on Royal Mail's postal counties" is better. It may have impacted logistically and financially.
Also: your correction to clarify a final destination was Berkshire is true. The land was lost to Surrey then to Berkshire: Poyle. Readers of this talk may wish to know why after one change in 1965, that further one followed. This is because of the M25 motorway which "cut it off entirely from its county" said Spelthorne and Surrey — but supporting this also its distance from other villages, strongly warehousing, light engineering and farming character with a very light scattering of Victorian homes probably all made it irresistible to add it to Colnbrook and it now falls within Colnbrook with Poyle civil parish. It is shameful that exists under how to write about UK settlements, it should be subsumed within Colnbrook.- Adam37 Talk 08:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Postal county map

If we are going to add a postal county map to the infobox, we need one that shows Middlesex in context with the other postal counties. So, a map of England with the postal county highlighted. MRSC (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesex still exists

If you ask the majority of the residents of Harrow, Hayes, Hounslow, Northwood, Northolt, Southall, Greenford, Ruislip, etc. which county they live in, most will say Middlesex, not London. Irrespective of whether or not it exists for administrative purposes people still perceive themselves as living in the county of Middlesex. To millions of people, mainly residents or former residents and their friends and relatives Middlesex still exists. Therefore I don't think it should be described as a former county. AlwynJPie (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been addressed both at the end of the discussion above above here and on many previous occaisions here and elsewhere its a dead issue. Please leave it to rest in peace.Tmol42 (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tmol42Say that to the millions of residents that live in the places that I mentioned above. Middlesex County Council was abolished in 1965 thats all.AlwynJPie (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wik.ipedia.Pro is not a forum enough! Tmol42 (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wik.ipedia.Prons,

I have just modified 2 external links on Middlesex. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wik.ipedia.Prons,

I have just modified one external link on Middlesex. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wik.ipedia.Prons,

I have just modified one external link on Middlesex. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wik.ipedia.Prons,

I have just modified 3 external links on Middlesex. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map description

There is a handy map at the start of the article with Middlesex shown in context with other counties. The description was Historic extent of Middlesex. I changed it to Middlesex as one of the English counties, because the first description is misleading because historic implies no longer. Another editor thinks otherwise. Thoughts? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When we talk of Middlesex where do we mean? The County, the Province or the Tribal Lands? Possibly you did not even realise there is a choice!
We do know that anyone who says, "Middlesex does not exist" is talking rubbish.
The assumption is that, because the County Council was abolished, Middlesex was abolished. Did Middlesex not exist before 1889? That was when the Middlesex County Council was formed.
I have ammended the caption to read, Middlesex in England and Wales Diolch, Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard 14:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We mean the traditional English county of course - other uses of the word are handled in the disambiguation link at the start of the article. I appreciate your self-reversal although I am not sure the your version is much of an improvement to what I put down. I think the frequently incorrect statements you refer to, about Middlesex being a thing of the past, go beyond confusing the county council with the county itself, but topicss like that have been debated to death on WP, as I am sure you know. The treatment of UK counties by WP will change at some point, it is only a question of when: the confusion and false information the wp policy creates is ongoing, this map description being just one more example of this. Tēnā koe Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To what specific change of treatment do you refer? Diolch, Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard 06:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what, I do not know, and I do not pretend any change will be simple because valid cases can be made for and against any change. The current system is not working properly so some change will need to take place. A simple but effective way to avoid the confusion and arguments that constantly take place would be to find a way, whenever ambiguity might occur, to refer to a non-traditional county by its more precise description, pedantic though that at times might be. I also see merit in not trying to combine two different entities into one article, just because the name is the same. Thus, we would have, for example, articles for 'Essex (traditional county)' and Essex (ceremonial county), or something similar. This is not the place for this discussion though. It should be in UK geography/counties. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

An historic or a historic? This mini edit war comes up everywhere, not just today on this article. My view is that 'an' is formally correct but that recent (ie last 50 years) common usage has swayed towards 'a', making that now informally correct. It is formally correct because the noun begins with an h and the stress - an historic county - is on the second syllable, unlike with 'a history lesson'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I prescribe to how one reads – surely that must be the criterium, not what it looks like on the page; it feels uncomfortable without the n. Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard 08:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I have very bad at hearing, nearly everyone uses 'an' not 'a' and drops the 'h' when speaking the word (out loud or silently to themselves when reading). This is except at the start of a sentence , eg 'Historical is a curious word'. But in that case a or an does not apply. The exception is someone from the East End of London, as in My Fair Lady. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard 13:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to dealing with UK counties

Please check here [7] if anyone is interested. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

The Wik.ipedia.Pro convention is settled and clear, we do not write about former counties as if they continue to exist. Additions to this article written that suggest the opposite will be removed. MRSC (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That said, some of the stuff added about things that happened while Middlesex actually existed (like the film industry) should be rewritten appropriately. MRSC (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of clutter removed there. Will you handle the Yorkshire article with similar zeal? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is still a lot more work to do on this article first. MRSC (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to revert your entire set of reversals but prudence got the better of me, so here we are in talk. Unless you are still composing a weightier tome, the talk page explanation you referred us to above is a big straggly and severely lacking in detail. I will focus on one section, the historic buildings. Yes, I know, it lacked citations but to use that as an excuse to wipe out 6,000 plus words and files of reasonably constructive quality does seems excessive. A simpler 'references needed' tag would have done, or you could surely have found those references yourself. Those buildings are notable and they are in Middlesex which makes your reversal even more puzzling. I think there will be some editors out there who might consider your staggered large scale reversals without any discussion or serious explanation, as bordering on being disruptive. Please put them back. I agree that much of the content involved would benefit from a good edit, but a face lift, not a decapitation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A list of buildings here is not useful. Some of it was repetition from the prose, such as Middlesex Guildhall. MRSC (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maps need dates

Please don't add maps without dates. Also, note it is typical to show a map of a geographic entity using the last set of boundaries it had. MRSC (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

I don't think there's a schwa; the /l/ is syllabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.239.157 (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Population before and after 1889

From a document 'County of London, Records of Old Middlesex, Conference of 21st November 1894. Opening Statement by the Chairman o the London Committee, with Annexures and List of Proposals made at or after the Conference' note, page 10

*Middlesex before 1889 - population 2 920 485, rateable value (excluding City of London) £22 370 371

*Middlesex after 1889 - 380 814 and £2 800 000

In the document 'Correspondence with the [[Local Government Board]] the pre-1889 population is given as 2 920 000 Jackiespeel (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I can see there's been a bit of back-and-forth on the wording of the lead. If editors want to discuss this I'd suggest opening a discussion at a central place such as WP:UKGEO, or at least posting a notice there directing editors to any discussion here. The historic counties are a topic broader than Middlesex, and any change in consensus here may have implications for articles such as Westmorland, Yorkshire, Sussex, and Huntingdonshire. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Middlesex&oldid=1252464664"

See what we do next...

OR

By submitting your email or phone number, you're giving mschf permission to send you email and/or recurring marketing texts. Data rates may apply. Text stop to cancel, help for help.

Success: You're subscribed now !