Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London

Consensus needed on Enfield move requests

I have proposed the below Enfield-related page moves:

The article about Enfield is currently called Enfield Town, but the name "Enfield Town" refers only to a specific part of Enfield (the town centre). For example, Bullsmoor, Freezywater, Enfield Lock and Ponders End are within the area covered by this Enfield Town article (Enfield), but not in Enfield Town. I also believe the subject of the article qualifies as a primary topic for "Enfield". I would appreciate London WikiProject users to get involved and share any support or objections! PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I see this discussion is now closed, but you could say the same thing about the Chipping Barnet article, which also includes information about New Barnet and East Barnet, even though those have their own separate articles. I would suggest therefore that we have articles dealing separately with Enfield Town, Ponders End, Enfield Lock as the different settlements that together are commonly said to comprise Enfield (which is itself part of the wider borough of the same name), and that typing 'Enfield, London' should lead to a disambiguation page between these individual areas as well as the London Borough of Enfield. Similarly we could also have articles dealing separately with Chipping Barnet, New Barnet, East Barnet, and that typing 'Barnet, London' should lead to a disambiguation page between these individual areas as well as the London Borough of Barnet.Uakari (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

London Borough Council articles - Finances section

Each of our 32 London Borough Council articles has sections on Powers and functions and on Finances, eg Southwark London Borough Council#Powers and functions and Southwark London Borough Council#Finances. I think all 32 articles have identical wording. There's a discussion at Talk:Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council#Finances section which would apply to all 32 articles and it would be good to find consensus there. We're discussing whether (a) the material currently in the section is useful and appropriate to a Finances section or (b) it repeats material in the Powers and Functions section and a Finances section should only exist if it had a different focus. NebY (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Photo request–3-7 Ray St., Clerkenwell

If only this photographer had been kind enough to walk down the street on the right...

Hi, I have a request for a photo if anyone is going to be near the Clerkenwell area. I've just rewritten the article of Vincent Figgins, a nineteenth-century industrialist and influential creator of fonts, and have submitted it for GA. His company's factory building at 3-7 Ray St., Clerkenwell, is still in existence, and a Grade II listed building, so it would be lovely to have a picture of it in the article and in the Wikidata entry. There isn't any photo on Commons of the street, so if anyone is in the area and feels they could safely take some pictures (and perhaps a detail shot of its railings, which retain the firm's monogram) I'd be really grateful. (As a stretch goal if anyone is near Nunhead Cemetery, his tomb has been very well photographed and has a commons category with many pictures....apart from the side listing his daughters, which is awkward to photograph as it adjoins the next tomb. If anyone could upload some really good close-ups of the text on all four sides, and ideally one showing clearly what it says under "Louisa wife of James Figgins", I'd again be grateful.) Blythwood (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Blythwood: I have uploaded five images for you to chose from. Please click on the link: "Wikimedia Commons has media related to 3-7 Ray Street, London." Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Dormskirk: – incredible, thank you so, so much! I've built a Wikimedia Commons category for Ray Street for them to be located in and linked one to the entry on Wikidata. Blythwood (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Blythwood: Great. No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC of interest

This RfC may be of interest to members of this group. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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,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:,_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,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: 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. The same editor added "is still part of the historic county" to City of Westminster. 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  TalkContribs 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  TalkContribs 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: 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)