[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

User Roger8Roger and historic counties

This editor, and associated cohort, are suspected of being members of / associates of Association of British Counties, who are undertaking a campaign to edit all places in London to insert Historic Counties in the first sentence of the lead, and remove current borough. This campaign has been underway since at atlease 2017. Part of their campaign is to employ both edits that are against WP:UK COUNTIES guidelines: HC no longer exist and should be referenced in the past tense and engage in gish gallop on project / article / user pages to push their agenda. Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This user is once again adding historic county information in the present tense to articles on London neighbourhoods, thus implying that these historic counties persist in the present, against the guidelines in paragraph 3 of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_counties#:~:text=Avoid%20using%20headings%20that%20arrange%20the%20history%20of,A%20note%20on%20the%20geology%20of%20the%20territory. He has done this in the lead of a large selection of London neighbourhood articles, but mostly to those outside the area for which the LONDON post-town is used (in itself a violation of WP:NPOV). This is clearly his pet project, but I have tried to explain to him that Wikipedia guidelines are reached by consensus, and that the consensus is that historic counties do not persist. It is not for one person to unilaterally decided that they do and change articles based on that (he believes something that is false, but more importantly, the consensus does not reflect his belief). I have suggested that he be consistent if he wants to add historic county information, and put it in ALL London neighbourhood articles (Westminster as well as West Ruislip!) in a way that clearly states that the area in question is no longer in that historic county, eg: 'Prior to 1965/1889, X was in the historic county of Y'. His scattergun approach is causing a real headache trying to correct. Would appreciate comments on the talk page discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Addington,_London. Uakari (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
It might be worth noting that there's been a bit of a kerfuffle over at Template talk:Infobox UK place about this recently (keep scrolling down the page and make sure the linked ANI discussion is also read). No one thought to notify anyone here by the looks of it.
Thank you for linking to the 2018 discussion. I didn't realise that had occurred. Fwiw I would support the wording you have suggested here or something similar to it (say, "Historically in the county of Kent,..."). Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Wow, there are certainly a lot of determined 'users' on that RfC. My use of the quotation marks is intended to convey how many of these accounts that believe in the persistence of historic counties mysteriously no longer exist, despite being very vocal (along with drive-by IP edits to the articles), which may imply sockpuppetry at work. The ANI confirms that the consensus as per the historic county infobox information has not changed, but I think we also need to reconfirm the guidelines about how to write about historic counties in the article itself, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_counties#:~:text=Avoid%20using%20headings%20that%20arrange%20the%20history%20of,A%20note%20on%20the%20geology%20of%20the%20territory. Wording such as 'historically in the county of Kent' still implies a level of present-day persistence to the historic county, so I would say that this does not meet the guidelines, but I have no problem with referencing the specific year in which an area was removed from the historic county, eg: 'Prior to 1965, X was in the historic county of Kent'. However, if we are going to do this then it needs to do be done for ALL London areas outside the City of London, not just those outside the (irrelevant) area to which the Royal Mail has assigned the LONDON post-town, because that does not reflect the accurate history and violates WP:NPOV. You can find a list of areas of London here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_of_London. I am personally not prepared to spend time adding that wording to every London area article (or researching whether a particular area was in the historic county prior to 1889 or prior to 1965), but would appreciate some help in removing the present-tense references to historic counties in the article leads (has mainly been done to those outside the area assigned the LONDON post-town), and removing the historic county infobox information, plus some talk page support trying to counter the disruptive reversions and edits of Roger8Roger. Thanks in advance. Uakari (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
On reflection, if historic county information is to be placed in the lead, I would suggest wording for ALL London areas outside the City of London, such as 'Historically it was in the county of Surrey'. This is because the historic counties as they pertain to London areas were actually abolished in 1889, not 1965 - in 1965 the counties as established in 1889 were further reduced in size (or completely abolished in the case of Middlesex). But again, the WAS is very important, and this would need to be done for all London areas outside the City of London, or not at all.Uakari (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
An IP editor is continuing to add historic counties to infoboxes in London Borough articles, so that we now have for example three listed at London Borough of Enfield.[1] The same editor added "is still part of the historic county" to City of Westminster.[2] NebY (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Editor User:PlatinumClipper96 is now engaging in edit warring by making multiple reverts regarding historic counties, specifically on the Addington, London article and the Barking article. I tried to assume good faith but judging by this user's edit history and wording, there seems to be an astonishing similarity to User:Roger_8_Roger. Can action be taken regarding these editors and their disruptive edits/reverts?Uakari (talk)
Uakari, you were bold on the Addington article. You were reverted by Roger 8 Roger. You reverted again. I then reverted your edit. You then reverted my revert, seemingly ignoring the guidance at WP:BRD. I reverted your revert, citing BRD. You then reverted a fourth time within a 24-hour period and broke WP:3RR and BRD. On the Barking article, I reverted you once after you were bold. You then ignored BRD on this article and reverted. I have not reverted you but you are accusing me of "edit warring" on the Barking article along with the Addington article. Please be assured that all my edits are indeed in good faith, and I assume yours are also in good faith. I would welcome a sockpuppet investigation if you feel it is necessary. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Forgive me for mistaking your remarkably similar prose style and pre-occupation with a single issue for that of the user you mentioned, when restoring my edits to that particular article. Sometimes it's hard to keep up with all these different editors and IP addresses who have taken upon themselves to introduce false information that goes against the consensus into so many London neighbourhood articles in the past few weeks, and their penchant for identical reverts! You, however, have certainly not been adhering to the DISCUSS part of the BRD cycle, or the following from WP:BRD: 'BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. So once again, what is your specific objection to the following wording: 'Historically, London neighbourhood X was in the county of Surrey'?Uakari (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
There have also been many similar editors and IP addresses that take it upon themselves to remove historic county information. Again, you seem to have forgotten the guidance that applies to writing about settlements. The historic county can be mentioned in the lead. By the way, I have already answered your question about your "was in the historic county" wording on the Addington talk page, and again on my talk page. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Once again, no one is saying you can't put that info in the lead, if you do so in a way that does not also go against the guidelines that 'we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries', and you do so for every London area outside the City of London. As shown earlier in this thread, you and those editors who believe that historic counties persist to this day have not gained consensus for this belief, so you have instead decided to take it upon yourself/yourselves to change the information anyway. That is bad-faith editing, because you already know what the consensus is, and that it does not support your belief.Uakari (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
These disruptive edits have contined. On articles in East London there has been at attempt to reconcile by making reference to the former country in the second paragraph of the lede; avoiding the first sentence saying "Stratford is in East London, the cerimonial countrt of Greater London and the ancient country of Essex' Should reverts/RRR edits continue, I support formal Dispute Resolution with PlatinumClipper96, Roger8Roger and associated cohort on this issue. Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Jonnyspeed20, I have not made any further edits. I'm not sure whose "disruptive edits" you are referring to. On the articles we were both involved in, we came to a compromise following discussion. I did not make any further changes to what was discussed. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Uakari, there is no guidance/consensus about whether the historic counties should be used as a present geographical reference on articles about settlements. You keep citing the consensus/guidance about the historic counties for articles about counties. On my talk page you accused me of realising I wasn't going to "get" my "way" "by discussing" and deciding "to change the articles anyway". In spite of what, exactly? I have discussed the issue on an article-by-article basis. Most editors seemed to have no problem with the mention of the historic county. Where changes have been reverted or editors have raised an issue, I have remained in compliance with Wikipedia standards, guidance and policy, including by discussing and reverting bold edits as per WP:BRD, guidance you often seem to disregard. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
@PlatinumClipper96: you wrote above "the guidance that applies to writing about settlements. The historic county can be mentioned in the lead". Please can you say what guidance it is that says that, and whether any guidance says it should be mentioned in the lead? NebY (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi NebY, this here is the guidance I'm referring to. It says that the lead "should normally cover" the historic county. It does not encourage or support the use of the past tense (e.g. "was in the historic county"), or any other tense. It refers to ceremonial counties as "present/ceremonial", but I still see no reason why this should not be mentioned alongside the historic county as a present geographical reference. The guidance/consensus Uakari is using to attack me for "bad-faith editing" and "vandalism" is guidance for articles about counties. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I see, thank you. I notice this situates district/area and present/ceremonial county at the start, but not historic county. That appears later, with the brief paragraph about history. NebY (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
As for tense, we wouldn't say St Albans is in the historic province of Britannia Superior, or Lichfield is in the historic kingdom of Mercia. Well, I wouldn't. Would you? NebY (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
NebY, I certainly wouldn't. You can't compare describing a place as being within a historic county to saying a place "is in the historic province of Britannia Superior" or "is in the historic kingdom of Mercia". The historic counties, unlike Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and Roman provinces, remain relevant today, are used as geographical references, and were not abolished. It was only in the late-19th century that the word "county" began to also be used when describing another set of areas (administrative counties) that are not historic/traditional counties. The government continued to treat traditional counties and administrative counties as separate entities, and has continued to acknowledge the historic counties in recent years. Administrative counties were changed many times since they were created. London was always seen as being split between counties. It was only in 1965 that most of London was put in a council area (now a "ceremonial county") with "London" in its name (Greater London). This did not mean that these places had suddenly become part of London. Nor did it mean that they ceased to be part of their historic county. Greater London wasn't even considered a "county" until quite a while later (when it became a "ceremonial county"). Does this mean these places weren't in any county until then? If their removal from the administrative counties named after their historic counties meant they ceased to be part of that county, is Southend-on-Sea not in Essex? PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not particularly familiar with Southend-on-Sea. It seems the kingdom of Essex encompassed its location, as did at least one version of the county of Essex, and is a unitary authority within the lieutenancy of Essex. It's not in London, if that helps. London has been through a lot of changes and expanded greatly. Its trunk dialling numbers went through some wild changes before arriving at 020-7 and 020-8, but this is where we've arrived. Likewise we have 32 London Boroughs and no Middlesex. Middlesex's assets, debts and duties were parcelled out and inherited, its governance dissolved, its area reallocated and its use as a postal address abolished. It only "is" like a Norwegian Blue is an ex-parrot. NebY (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Lead has district/area and present/ceremonial county at the start of the laed, but not historic county. That appears later, with any brief paragraph about history. Why are editors placing historic county in the first sentence? NebY (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

"This did not mean these places had suddenly become part of London." This is what we're dealing with: someone who doesn't think that even Westminster is in London, let alone Islington, Camden, Stratford, Walthamstow, Barnet, Kingston, Croydon, Ealing, Bromley. The fact that many of these places have London boroughs actually named after them means nothing to this person. The fact that all these places are in London boroughs as well as a region called London means nothing to this person. This person refuses to accept the definition of London as the 32 London boroughs plus the City of London, or the consensus that historic counties do not persist to this day with their former boundaries, and will continue to edit all relevant articles to suit their belief, unless action is taken against them. In the end, the pages for Westminster, Soho or Piccadilly won't even mention that they are in London, but rather in 'Middlesex', unless action is taken against this person. Never mind that they insist that the guidance about 'writing about counties' only applies to articles about the counties themselves, when it is self-evident that it also applies to writing about counties in articles about settlements that are or were once in those counties. What year do they mean when they say the Greater London ceremonial county was created 'quite a while later'? Administrators need to step in here unless you want all the articles related to this Wikiproject to become a complete laughing stock, because that's the only place that tolerating this person's edits or trying to reach agreement with them is going to get us. Uakari (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I have just come across this discussion. It is appearing increasingly clear to me that it looks as though there is an orchestrated attack on user:PlatinumClipper96 and on me. If I am wrong then I apologise, but this is how the discussion here and on other pages, such a PC's talk page looks to me. I have been around this counties debate long enough to get a feel of what is happening, which editors are genuine and which are not acting in good faith. Editors here often appear out of the woodword, create a hullabalu and then disappear again. An example of this possibly being an attack is the failure by certain editors (who have only recently appeared on the scene regardind HCs), ie the ones posting above (and there might be others watching in the background) to answer PC's repeated request to properly account for why they are not following BRD. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I may be misunderstanding this, but can't it just be added to the infobox then mentioned in the "History" section with the wording above? It may be useful but I hardly feel it's important enough for the lede. I also think this whole discussion just needs to stop focusing on the motives of the editors involved (from both sides) and reaching an actual consensus on whether these edits are useful. Saying "X is clearly in bad faith", etc. is not helping achieving consensus in this discussion. Ad hominem exists. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 11:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
At the top of this discussion I linked to a discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK place where there's been a massive issue with the practicalities of adding this information to infoboxes. There's an ANI thread linked from that that also needs reading really. This is probably less of an issue in the context of London, although the reliance of a single source will create issues around locations such as Deptford, for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree that blame and finger pointing isn't getting us anywhere. An complete rethink on the whole HCs debate is needed. there has been a lengthy discussion on the ibx template site which ended in a form of stalemate. That debate, this one, and very many others are not really solving the problem. I hope there will soon be a debate designed specifically at getting broad consensus on how to deal with HC. Whatever the merits of differing opinions expressed by editors, it is clear from the frequent and never ending discussions going back years that the current system isn't working properly. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
If there's no consensus, don't add it; simple. If this is really been going on for a while with no clear consensus you're open to start a Request for Comment for opinions of uninvolved editors. It might benefit to start a subsection of this thread to achieve consensus on the alterations, as this discussion is clearly not. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 12:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not totally convinced there is a "problem" as such:
  • the RfC from 2018 was closed as there being no consensus to change the approach to this sort of thing;
  • WP:UKCITIES says its fine to mention the historical county in the lead
All we have to do is meet both of these criteria when we write about historical counties - mention them, sure, but do so in the past tense.
The only problem that I can note from this is that any discussion about changing anything related to this needs to take place at WP:UKGEO (the source of both of those sets of guidelines) and should probably be advertised here, as well as at a range of other related projects. I would suggest as many as possible in the circumstances.
It might also be helpful if projects such as this one reflected the same guidelines somehow. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I also see no problem with the current guidelines, apart from one or two determined users brining this up periodically to try to alter the consensus. The guidelines are not contradictory: Clearly it is permissible for historic counties to be mentioned in the lead, but not in such a way that implies that they 'still exist with their former boundaries'. I have repeatedly suggested to Roger_8_Roger and PlatinumClipper96 that a very straightforward way exists to be consistent with the guidelines, that is to have a sentence in the lead with wording/links such as: "Historically, it was in the county of Surrey." However, these users did not accept this and have continued to edit in a way that contravenes the guidelines. Also these users need to actually then take the time to insert this sentence into the leads for ALL London neighbourhood articles (outside the City of London). This is as opposed to the current situation where these editors have mainly mentioned the historic county (as still persisting) for London neighbourhoods not assigned the LONDON post-town, which is completely inconsistent and a violation of WP:NPOV. Until this happens, all the London neighbourhood and London borough articles need to be restored to remove the present-tense references to historic counties. I would appreciate help from other editors with this, as it is a lot of work going through all of the articles that have been changed to include present-tense references to historic counties. These changes have only occurred in recent weeks, often also giving the historic county precedence over the Ceremonial County or completely removing the statement that a particular area is in London at all (not just Greater London). See Dagenham as an example of the former and Kingston upon Thames as an example of the latter. Uakari (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

A discussion at WT:UKGEO has now begun, specifically at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Historic counties. NebY (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Uakari, that is a complete and utter misrepresentation of what I "think". Of course Westminster, Islington, Camden, Stratford, Walthamstow, Barnet, Kingston, Croydon, Ealing, Bromley, etc, are in London. I have never, in any of my edits, tried to omit the fact a place is in London. I have no idea what makes you think I'd have the articles for Soho, Westminster and Piccadilly state they are in Middlesex "rather" than London. You continue to try and portray myself and Roger 8 Roger in as negative a manner as possible, including by distorting information and downright lying about editors' behaviour, as you have been doing here and on my talk page. Now you're advocating for "action" to be "taken against" me, I see why. I made the point that "this did not mean these places had suddenly become part of London" because most places that became part of Greater London in 1965 were already considered part of London whilst part of the administrative counties of Middlesex, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey. I will continue to insist that the guidance you keep citing and accusing me of disregarding is for articles about the counties themselves (despite the fact Jonnyspeed20 has taken it upon himself to edit the guidelines about writing about settlements), mainly because it states it exists as a "basic framework for a UK county article". PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
PlatinumClipper96 I apologise if I have misinterpreted your comments on attributed edits to you that you did not make. I maintain that there have been overly-heated statements, misinterpretation and assumptions of bad faith on both sides of this discussion, along with edits and reversions that have disregarded current consensus/guidelines. My suggestion that action could be taken applies to the last point only, because many of the London neighbourhood articles in particular have been edited in a comparatively short space of time so as to remove the reference to their being in 'London' (rather than just 'Greater London') altogether, and (until subsequent edits) so as to give the historic county precedence - offhand see Surbiton and Kingston upon Thames. This absolutely should not be happening without discussion and will cause a lot of reversion work, but if I have wrongly-attributed those edits to you then I apologise. Luckily the discussion in this linked sub-thread is proving calmer and hopefully more productive, if you would like to add further points to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Twin_tracks The fact is that of the places mentioned above, Stratford, Walthamstow, Barnet, Kingston, Croydon, Ealing and Bromley *did* "suddenly become parts of London in 1965", having not been parts of London before (however they may have been considered by some), so I hope you can understand the reason for my misunderstanding that particular statement you made. Uakari (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Uakari. Sorry for the late reply (haven't been able to get on Wikipedia much lately) and thanks for the apology. I'd like to reiterate my point that these places did not suddenly become parts of London in 1965 as if they had "not been parts of London before". They became part of a new council area called "Greater London". What makes you think the area of Greater London is *the* definition of "London"? The London postal district/LONDON post town, for instance, already existed in its present shape, and has, in fact, done so since 1866. This was before even the administrative "County of London" existed, and the entire area of what is now Greater London was by all means within Middlesex, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey. Let's not forget the Metropolitan Police District as shown here, the London Transport network area, etc. "London" has always referred to an informally defined area, split between traditional counties. People in Stratford, Walthamstow and Barnet, for instance, identified with London as well as Essex and Hertfordshire, long before 1965, with Stratford, Walthamstow, Plaistow, Canning Town, Leyton, etc, having long been considered part of not only "East London" but the "East End". This continues today. As for articles not describing some places as being in London, I would not object to describing any part of Greater London as being in "London". My solution would be to describe some places in Greater London (e.g. villages such as Addington) as being "on the outskirts of (e.g. south) London" rather than "in". PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Granada Cinema, Woolwich#Requested move 2 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Granada Cinema, Woolwich#Requested move 2 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 02:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Wimbledon articles: Large move request to move Gentlemen's" → "Men's", "Ladies'" → "Women's

A move request at Talk:The Championships, Wimbledon is taking place to move any Wimbledon article titles that contain Gentlemen's and Ladies' to Men's and Women's. The Australian, French, and US Championships all use Men's and Women's but Wimbledon has always used Gentlemen's and Ladies'. Since this is a listed concerned WikiProject, you are being informed of the discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966)

Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966)/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C. Featured article review

I have nominated Arsenal F.C. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Great Fire of London - FAR nomination

I have nominated Great Fire of London for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Renerpho (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Great Fire of London

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Great Fire of London/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking to speak to UK based Wikipedia editors

Hi there,

My name is Victoria and I work at the cross-party UK think-tank Demos. We bring the voices of the public into policymaking, and a big focus for us is bringing those voices into political debates about the future of online life.

Right now, we’re listening to people who earn low or no pay from their online work, to understand what they think a fair and desirable future would look like when it comes to being paid for this work.

We are looking at this because new technology could make it easier for people to monetise their work online, instead of relying on existing ways of being paid such as advertisers, subscribers, and through traditional platforms. We are keen to hear perspectives both from people who would like to monetise their online work and from those who would not find such an option desirable, for example, those who volunteer their time online, view their content creation as a hobby or feel getting paid would negatively change the nature of the work they do.

I’m posting here to see if there are any wiki editors that would be interested in taking part in this project. We believe perspectives like yours should be included in decisions about how people are paid for their work online. The outputs of this project will be social media content, a short report and a site that highlights the views that come out of the workshops. Through these we will try to shape the debates held by politicians, the media and tech companies about how online payment for work is run.

It would involve joining a 1.5 hour Zoom workshop with others who do work online across various platforms, where we’d discuss as a group people’s experiences and how the systems for being paid for online work could be improved.

We will need your email and the name you would like to use in the workshop. We would record the Zoom call for our research but would delete this on completion of the project. We recognise that this discussion would touch on sensitive personal information, and all personal data would be handled and stored in accordance with Demos’ privacy policy, which can be found here. If we use any quotes from you, we will reach out to you first to check if this is okay, and we can use a pseudonym if you prefer.

You would be paid £125 for your time and we would try to organise the call at a time that is convenient for all. At present the workshop is scheduled to run in the week beginning 9 May but there is some flexibility here to move the call forward if that week proves difficult for people.

This project is funded by Grant for the Web (you can read their announcement about the project here), a fund to boost open, fair, and inclusive standards and innovation in web monetisation. Demos itself is an independent, cross-party charity and has control over how the project is run.

Thank you for taking the time to read through this. If you are interested in taking part or would like to learn more, please contact me at victoria.baines@demos.co.uk and I can provide further information. Vbdemos (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Wembley Arena needs renaming

The article Wembley Arena should be renamed. Until recently it went by the name The SSE Arena, now it is the OVO Arena Wembley. The problem with Wembley Arena is that it is simply not the official name in use for the complex - it is no longer called Wembley Arena for 8 years now. This means that the current title violates the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Hence it is due time that the article gets renamed accordingly as it is no longer the common name for years. OVO Arena Wembley is the title used absolutely everywhere, for instance take a look at advertised events and concerts at the site. It is without a doubt the common name now.

It is also inconsistent. Why is the Emirates Stadium article not titled Ashburton Grove then? Or the SSE Arena, Belfast not titled Odyssey Arena? These are redundant names, just as Wembley Arena is. --Jf81 (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Jf81 WP:COMMONNAME states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used...". Wembley Arena was only rebranded "OVO Arena Wembley" a month ago; almost everyone will continue to refer to it as Wembley Arena. Compare Hammersmith Apollo. Officially "Eventim Apollo" since 2003. And many people of a certain age still think of it as the Hammersmith Odeon, a name officially dropped in 1992! Edwardx (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Wembley Arena is the common name, most people don't add the sponsorship name on the front when writing it in prose. :\ Govvy (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. @Edwardx: Your Hammersmith example is a good one, but I don't think it applies to Wembley. While it is true that the OVO name appeared a month ago, it has been SSE since 2014 - that's 8 years. And @Govvy:, I think in this case the sponsored name has enough traction for it to be considered common name, definitely a lot more than Hammersmith Apollo. --Jf81 (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Jf81, check out Talk:Wembley Arena. Previous attempts to move it to "SSE Arena, Wembley" failed, and any attempt to move it to "OVO Arena Wembley" will go the same way. I am confident that there are more productive things to do with your time. For example, enter the postcode "HA9 0AA" at Historic England map search to find listed buildings nearby (you will need to zoom out). Per WP:GEOFEAT, all UK listed buildings "are presumed to be notable." I have started plenty of articles in my Fulham/Chelsea/Kensington area, and it is fun to take the photos too. And with plenty of warm sunny days coming up, an pleasant healthy walk to boot. I think I have just talked myself into getting out the camera. Bye! Edwardx (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Review for H.D.

I have nominated H.D. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

London Article

Dear WikiProject London,

I am an editor interested in promoting the London article from GA status to FA status. I would like to know if any of you are currently working on this article and whether you know what is currently holding the article back. Thanks for your time! 16:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabiryani (talk • contribs)

@Kabiryani:, I see that you are a new editor. May I suggest that you set your sights a little lower? Quite frankly, London is a massive article, attracts around 100,000 views a week, and is not a high-standard GA article at the moment; so it would require a concerted effort by more than one Wikipedia editor, no matter how experienced they are, to get it up to FA-class. I would recommend setting your sights a little lower — perhaps you could bring your borough up to GA and then FA class instead? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox livery company add date that livery was granted

Hi, I've been doing some research on the Worshipful Company of Founders and recently added the above infobox to the article. I was thinking that it might be an idea to add a new line to the template so that we can record both the date that company was formed and also the date that livery was granted. It seems fairly simple to add this to the template but I'm not 100% sure what to call it. Is the correct term "Date of Royal Charter"? The Livery company article doesn't seem to cover the process of granting livery in much detail and I wanted to make sure that I use the correct term before I make any changes. RicDod (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

AfD for West London Penguin aka Hammersmith Ladies Swimming Club

Here is an AfD discussion for West London Penguin Swimming and Water Polo Club which may be of interest to this WikiProject:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West London Penguin Swimming and Water Polo Club

Cielquiparle (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

London railway termini map... anyone willing to contribute to this map?

[also posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways] I noticed that there was no free map on Wikipedia showing the various railway stations in central London on a map, along with their lines and destinations. The closest I saw was this: File:Major railway stations of London map.svg, which is quite well made with a good map background and lines, but isn't complete (e.g. Moorgate is missing), outdated now (with opening of Elizabeth line) and it only shows a border for the City which doesn't tell much.

So I set out to create one myself using that SVG as a stepping stone. I don't know how to work with SVG hence I created my file in a separate software using layers in PNG format. The result was this: File:Railway stations, lines and termini in central London.png. My map shows quite clearly all the stations along with coloured lines (inc. the new Elizabeth line), the names/operators, and commuter destinations.

However I know it'd be best if that original SVG can be improved to bring it in line with that - the problem is I don't know how to do it myself so am requesting if others are willing to perform it. The changes that I see ideally need to be made to that SVG are:

  • Update it to show the Elizabeth line railway track
  • Add missing termini like Moorgate, as well as other stops in the area like City Thameslink
  • Put accurate borders with purple outlines for the other boroughs in the area (Westminster, Camden, Lambeth etc.)

With an improved and complete version like that, we'd have a good raw map, and it can be used to create a version with coloured lines and operator/destination names as I did before with that PNG. --Manche Captain (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Kensal Green article

I would like to direct the community's attention to Kensal Green, as I have only just discovered that the article is in a dreadful state and likely one that has been forgotten about or ignored. Some work needs to be done to get it up to a better standard of quality like Willesden. Last year I did a good amount of work to bring Harlesden up to better standards (with great results), but I currently don't have as much free time for Kensal Green. Anyone willing to contribute in making Kensal better would be much appreciated. --Jf81 (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I have another suggestion to put forward to the community: rename this article to Kensal, London? The reason is that both Kensal Green and Kensal Rise are together here. The LB of Brent has a history article of the area on their website [3] where they are listed together as Kensal Green and Kensal Rise. Seeing that there is no clear distinction, it might be better to rename the article accordingly to simply Kensal. --Jf81 (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I've never heard it called just Kensal though. Secretlondon (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Valid point. What's the best alternative then? --Manche Captain (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
How about Kensal Green and Kensal Rise? NebY (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
That is surprisingly a good name, and given the situation probably the best choice. --Manche Captain (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Surprised me too! :) NebY (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
If there's concensus I would definitely support a move! --Manche Captain (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Routemaster image

Do we really want this image appearing in WikiProject London templates? Routemasters have been progressively withdrawn from service and are rarely seen in London today. There are many cliches about London abroad (Routemasters, red phone boxes, smiling bobbies with custodian helmets) but we shouldn't be pandering to these unrecognisable tourist fantasies of London. --Ef80 (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The modern routemasters are terrible buses. Seriously I do agree it's a cliche. Secretlondon (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Alternative proposals anyone? Eagleash (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Any image is likely to be a cliche given the universality required and the international readership, but I do think Routemasters are a particularly bad choice - like using Checker cabs for New York. The Houses of Parliament or Tower Bridge would be better choices - still cliches, but at least reasonably timeless. --Ef80 (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if this has been discussed at some earlier point and the iconic image of a red double-decker was decided on in preference to architecture (clichés) like HoP, Buck House, Tower / Bridge etc. as being something that London is widely known for. Although, the 1950s/60s RM is no longer current, the NBFL may not yet be well-enough known and is a bit anonymous in comparison. FWIW, if going for an architectural image, I think the ToL would be my personal choice. Eagleash (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
a bit anonymous - a non-bendy bus with three doors? It also has two staircases and Northern Irish plates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
*in comparison*; the third door is rarely, if ever, in use and is basically a gimmick. Also other new bus models are including some of the styling elements so you have to 'look twice' to make sure it is actually the new RM. Most of the current crop of buses are very similar 'red-bricks' (none of them are bendy, so being non-bendy is hardly an individual characteristic) and do not stand out but the old RM was instantly recognisable. Got a suggestion for an alternative image BTW? Eagleash (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't suggest using a new RM image. Maybe the old image is the best compromise after all. I do find it jars a bit when it pops up on a talk page though. --Ef80 (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Eagleash, Ef80, Redrose64, and Secretlondon: I'm rather late to this party, but what about File:London Eye Twilight April 2006 (cropped).jpg? It would make a nice counterpoint to Big Ben in the portal icon. Ham II (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

While that's a pretty stunning image, it's not very suggestive of London even to a Brit. --Ef80 (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Would agree; great shot but over-sized Ferris wheels are pretty common now and not really individual to London. Eagleash (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Tube

Wikipedia should adopt the style 'Aldgate East London Underground Station'. "Tube" is too casual (slang even) and poorly defined to merit encyclopaedic use, though an article on the origins, meaning and current use of the term would be absolutely fine.

TFL's own "Tube map" included the Underground (commonly called 'The Tube'), DLR, Crossrail/Eliz. Line, and London Overground, and even at one time Thameslink - not a TfL service by any stretch of the imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinal 1962 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cardinal 1962: Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations). This was agreed long ago - well, before I joined Wikipedia in 2009, at least. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I've been here since December 2004 and the convention of using "tube station" was established before I got here. That's not to say that consensus to use something different will never happen, but there will need to be a very good reason identified for the change. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Anyone who thinks that the term "Tube station" is poorly defined clearly hasn't played enough games of Mornington Crescent to be writing Wikipedia articles on Tube stations. I think we should suspend this discussion and adjourn it to the next London meetup where we can test all participants by playing a round or two of Mornington crescent. As for whether The Tube is slang; English doesn't have a universally recognised regulatory body like the Academy Francaise to rule as to when words migrate from slang to language and back again, at least not unless the Americans accept the obvious candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 11:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Make sure you check the postbag, Mrs Trellis of North Wales may have an opinion.
I hope to be at London next time. Can't promise it yet, but we no longer have deliveries scheduled for Sundays, which has been the killer factor since Covid restrictions were eased. Except for June 12, when I had a prior arrangement in Lancashire. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The only stations where 'tube station/Underground station/whatever (rather than 'X station') is absolutely necessary are the group where there are duplicate (Elephant and Castle etc) and higher (Canary Wharf, Paddington and Liverpool Street etc) stations. Otherwise 'so long as the system is consistent and there are redirects from (singleton) X Station to X (whatever) station' does it actually matter since 'somebody or several persons' long ago did all the setting up? Jackiespeel (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, let's assume that TfL decide to extend the Northern Line from Battersea to, oh, how about Kingston-upon-Thames, roughly following the route of the A3/A308. They may decide to build a station at the junction of those two roads, to be named "Robin Hood". We will immediately get somebody creating an article for the station. With the present Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations), it could only be named Robin Hood tube station. Without that guideline, several people may create any or all of: Robin Hood station, Robin Hood Tube Station, Robin Hood underground station and other variants. Result: chaos, like we had in the early days. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Given that all those redlinks would quickly become redirects I wouldn't go so far as to call it chaos. but calling a tube station a tube station is obviously the better name. ϢereSpielChequers 10:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Would have to include 'stations resited', names reused (as with North Greenwich railway station and North Greenwich tube station) and 'stations with the same name in different locations' to my list.
As the convention was established 'at least 18 years ago' and there is no obvious alternative system that would work better while a grand renaming project would cause much work the present system will no doubt persist. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Heraldry

Help appreciated at Draft:Armorial of London. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Dan Wagner article update

Hi. Editors of this project might be interested in suggestions to update the article about Dan Wagner a known tech and e-commerce entrepreneur in London. The proposals are here: Talk:Dan Wagner#Request Edits April 2022. Since I have a COI, an independent editor or editors should review these. Thanks.W12SW77 (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:North Circular Road#Requested move 19 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:North Circular Road#Requested move 19 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani#Requested move 25 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani#Requested move 25 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

In case it isn't clear, this is a multiple article RM request, which includes Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II and Death and state funeral of George V, Death and state funeral of George VI, Death and state funeral of Winston Churchill, all of which may be relevant to this WikiProject. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Joseph. I'll go make a similar note on the other country WPs I notified. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The Metropolis

Metropolitan Borough of Islington:
[quote] Islington was a civil parish and metropolitan borough in London, England. It was an ancient parish within the county of Middlesex, and formed part of The Metropolis from 1855.

What does The Metropolis mean here, 1855 to 1889? --P64 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m fairly sure in this sense it refers to the built up contiguous urban area of London. Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the repetition of the word London. It could be a little clearer I guess, and should really be not capitalised as it’s not a proper noun, makes it look like it’s referring to a specific borough with that name. Unless I have it wrong.  Carlwev  06:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it means the contiguous urban area. Use of Metropolis or The Metropolis (and related terms) as a proper noun referring to London specifically was not uncommon in the era, see Metropolis#United Kingdom. That usage has (mostly) not persisted to the present day, but that doesn't mean it was wrong at the time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I guess 1855 may refer to the Metropolis Management Act 1855 which created the Metropolitan Board of Works, which first met in 1855 but didn't take over from the Metropolitan Buildings Office and the Metropolitan Commission of Sewers until 1856. The act[4] did include a definition "In the Construction of this Act " the Metropolis " shall be deemed to include the City of London, and the Parishes and Places mentioned in the Schedules (A.), (B.), and (C.)" but I think that was only for the purpose of creating the Metropolitan Board of Works. Certainly "the Metropolis" and "the Great Metropolis" (with variable Victorian capitalisation) meant London well before 1855, but I can't quite see it's right to make a general statement that Islington "formed part of The Metropolis from 1855". NebY (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
If you read the governance section and the lede together I think that the article is arguing that prior to 1855 it was a parish in the county of Middlesex and that after the 1855 act it then became part of the Metropolitan board of works and therefore ceased to be part of Middlesex. I'm not sure that this is correct. Middlesex#Metropolitan_challenges states that ""From 1855, the parishes of the densely populated area in the south east, but excluding the City of London, came within the responsibility of the Metropolitan Board of Works for certain infrastructure purposes, though the area remained a part of Middlesex". This is sourced to a book that I don't have. The Middlesex article goes onto say that the London part of Middlesex was transferred to the county of London in 1888. Therefore I think that Islington formed part of the metropolis from 1888 but it might be better to say it formed part of the county of London from 1888.RicDod (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
This form of words is also used in the lede of Hogarth's House "Chiswick is now one of London's western suburbs, but in the 18th century it was a large village or small town quite separate from the metropolis, but within easy reach of it." I agree that it seems to be used to avoid repetition of the word London and that it is not as clear as it could be. However, I'm struggling to come up with any better alternatives. Referring to the city would lead to confusion around whether it meant the City of London or the wider built up area. Wider built up area is very wordy and clunky. RicDod (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

St Mary-le-Bow

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

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

draft article

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

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

Requested move at Talk:Murder of Don Banfield/Archive 1#Requested move 24 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Murder of Don Banfield/Archive 1#Requested move 24 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Historic counties, guidelines and the lead section

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

Hi Sirfurboy, I was pinged so I'm here. I am also here because I think you're able to argue your point and discuss the issues constructively, unlike many editors on Wikipedia. I do not want to return to the Project page you suggest above - for this topic it is stale with rigid opinions set in stone. If you are willing to discuss, but not here, my talk page is free to use. I have a simple question. You say you are removing historic counties from a place's article lead because that accords with guidelines. The guidelines are [5]. They say: The lead (see also WP:LEAD) is the text before the first heading. It should not exceed four paragraphs and should normally cover the following:
  • Geographic description
  • Name of settlement: if in doubt follow WP:COMMONNAME; use translated names in national languages where recognised officially or in common use.
  • etc
  • Historic county (if in England or Wales and if different from current county), and a brief paragraph about historical roots / founding
To me that is absolutely clear as day. I am not passing any opinion on why, if, how, right, wrong or whatever, about those guideline, I am just seeing what they say. For the settlement articles in which you have removed the HC from the lead, the current county, GL, is different from the HC. So, please tell me, why are you saying that guidelines allow you to do remove mention of the HC? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Roger, I don't say I am removing historic counties. The guidelines say they should be mentioned where different from current county. Guidelines also say that leads summarise main text so I tried removing them on a couple of pages that had no such history, and ended up putting in the history in the main text instead. But no, that is not my intent. My intent is to fix a minority of little visited pages that have been edited against guidelines and an established consensus largely unnoticed. But these are content discussions, not appropriate for my user talk page.
I will contribute on your page if you wish to host discussion there, but I would suggest any user talk discussion should be meta. We spoke about workshopping an RFC, and discussion about how you would go about the discussion is appropriate, but the content discussion itself should be either on guideline talk pages or the London project pages. There is an established consensus there (and my edits are in line with it), but any consensus can be challenged. We could certainly discuss on your talk page, but even if we found agreement, any edits we made against that project consensus would meet opposition. Ultimately the discussion has to be taken to the established fora. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Hi Roger, I have been busy for a couple of weeks, so just looking at this now. Where to from here? If the guidelines were "clumsily added" then it should be possible to get a consensus on a change that would improve the situation. That would need an RfC. The RfC should, I think, be clear in what it proposes, and why the proposal is an improvement, because otherwise we get bogged down in discussion and nothing will happen. Personally I think the guidelines as they stand are a reasonable compromise. We use the term "ceremonial county" where we could use "geographic county", and that is correctly the default. Do we need all that information to be specified in the lead? Well there is a point I am less clear on. At the moment we have leads that say such and such a place was (or sometimes is) in a historic county of blobshire, without the page ever mentioning blobshire in the main text. As such the information is uncited and unsupported. I don't think we should be citing sources in leads, per MOS:CITELEAD, but it is clear that leads should be summarising the main text. Thus for me, I would say if its not important enough to mention in the main text, it should not be in the lead at all. So I would certainly support an RfC that made that point in the guidelines. I would not support a proposed change that said we should speak of historic counties as though towns remain in them, despite now being in different counties. Although I am aware that text can be found in some places, and is, in English usage, acceptable, I find it ambiguous and unhelpful, and anecdotally know of people that have used such language to justify an intransigent belief that historical counties are immutable and perpetual. However that is just my opinion, and if you think a consensus on some alternate wording is possible, feel free to propose it and we can test the issue in an RfC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
The vast majority of edit wars revolve around isolated sentences in the lead that say 'X is/was in Y historic county' and I agree there is rarely anything else in the article about that. Therefore, yes, there should not be any mention of the HC in the lead. A way forward could be a stricter application of the wiki principle that the lead should only summarise what is in the body. I would have no problem removing isolated sentences in the lead about HCs. If that rule were better policed then it would encourage editors to improve an article by adding something useful and of substance into the article. Next, there is a problem highlighted recently where HC were automatically added to all place articles, irrespective of their relevance to a particular place. This led to Bromley being in HC Kent, for example, receiving the same weight as Chelsea being in Middlesex. I do not agree with this one-size fits all approach.However, a well constructed section on the history of Chelsea will refer to Middlesex, and some will say that then allows Middlesex to go into the lead. I am not sure how to handle that except by simple consensus around relevance. I think reference to chelsea being in Middlesex would receive scant mention, even in the history section, whereas Bromley being in Kent would receive a lot more attention. Whatever, the odd edit war about what weighting to give to a towns presence in an HC would be much less of a problem than the current never ending series of edit wars. Third point, is use of is/are. This boils down, I think, simply to an editor's personal perspective. There will be a many editors who have in their mind that Bromley is in Kent but almost none that connect Chelsea with Middlesex, and very few, if any, who link Lewisham with Kent. In that sense, both is and was are correct. I wonder what would happen if we created guidelines to say that both are equally valid and left it at that? One point where we might simply not agree, is the current status of HCs, do they exist or not? I think the evidence is overwhelming that they were never abolished, but then neither were (most of) the hundreds in England, and we never have an issue with 'X was in the hundred of Y'. There are articles on hundreds where, in th infobox, rather than having the term abolished, 'obsolete' is used and the reference is something like 'late 19thC.' In terms of counties, more use of this term could be a way forward. Bromley being in Kent is not an obsolete fact, whereas Lewisham being in Kent probably is, and Chelsea being in Middlesex certainly is. Related to this is, once again, editors' casual use of language. I sigh in disapproval when I read the 'X was in Essex but it was transfered to London in 1965'. That is factually incorrect but is easier on the mind and easier to type than saying 'a local govt entity was abolished and a new one created...' Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mr. Bean

Mr. Bean has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London/Archive_11&oldid=1147347290"