Jump to content

Talk:Romford

Good articleRomford 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
August 24, 2009Good article nomineeListed

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: Editors must be mindful of fostering and/or introducing anachronism into former county articles. Use language that asserts past tense - We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. Continued use of the name of the county can be explained in the "Legacy" section. And also: 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is a fact that Essex is in the historic county of Essex. That is not a fact, that is an opinion, as is historic counties still exist. It is, per our guidelines, a minority opinion and Wik.ipedia.Pro 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.
Wik.ipedia.Pro is a project aimed at furthering the dissemination of knowledge. There are widespread misunderstandings about these counties, and Wik.ipedia.Pro 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: County: use the ceremonial county (England, Wales and Northern Ireland only) where not clear from the administrative district. 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 Historic county (if in England or Wales and if different from ceremonial county). 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, Use language that asserts past tense - We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yawn, here we go again... I will assume good faith Well if you felt the need to say it. Policy overrides guidelines. We look to what RSSs say, 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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

@Sirfurboy: and @Roger 8 Roger: 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 PLEASE GO TO THE TALKPAGE BEFORE CHANGING THIS [East London] TO ESSEX. 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)[reply]
I do my best to abide by WP:BRD - 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
If you think there is hounding going on (| rather than an attempt to correct a series of related errors on Wik.ipedia.Pro, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Roger 8 Roger link to the relevant talk page is here - Wik.ipedia.Pro 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 [1]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wik.ipedia.Pro. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:

Historically, Romford was a market town in the county of Essex, and formed the administrative centre of the liberty of Havering before that liberty was dissolved in 1892... Romford significantly expanded and increased in population, becoming a municipal borough in 1937 and was incorporated into Greater London in 1965

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 Wik.ipedia.Pro 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. Wik.ipedia.Pro 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


"guidelines ... North Korea ... Vladimir Putin ... poll tax ... poll tax ... decapitation ... you are comparing apples with pears." Don't dodge and filibuster. If you want the guidelines scrapped or changed, start an RFC. NebY (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NebY, in your most recent edit to the Romford article, you claim "there is clear consensus and awareness at Talk:Romford#Romford is not in Essex that inserting the historic county of Essex into the first paragraph is contrary to Wik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements". 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 "Historically, Romford was a market town in the county of Essex" 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)[reply]
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.
MRSC'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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

RfC

See here [2] Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romford&oldid=1209801089"

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 !