2127:
their town names"; the name of the 'tribe' in "Kent" prior to the Romans is not actually known. It is not even really known whether the whole area of the later kingdom and county was even an homogenous 'people'. The name
Cantiaci, etc are the names given by the Romans. We have absolutely no idea what the locals called themselves. In the same county the later periods are referred to with "and which were then taken on by the Anglo-Saxons (like most people nowadays I doubt Bede's division between Angles, Saxons and Jutes, and anyway Bede does not make this the only ancient Jutish kingdom - he includes also the Isle of Wight). Certainly the Anglo-Saxons tended to adopt and adapt existing place names, and perhaps that may have been the case of the Romans too - we have some historical record,at least, for the Romans, but the names which they adopted were those which emerged after over three centuries of Roman domination. I would wholeheartedly endorse the idea that Bede is not a reliable source - he was extremely biased - but modern studies of cultural and linguistic legacies have shown that there were certainly Jutish influences in what we might consider southern Hampshire, including both the Isle of Wight and the area around the New Forest and into the area now occupied by the City of Southampton. In this case Bede may well have been right. Another of my concerns is that the assertions made by some correspondents, and indeed in the article itself, fail to recognise the sheer complexity of the dynamics of all boundaries throughout the history of the areas concerned.
2131:
clue to its formation? Yorkshire is mentioned in the text but there are few solid contemporaneous records about why the county was formed, nor its extent. We can guess when the primary sub-divisions (de-facto counties) were named because the nomenclature of Riding is derived form Old
Scandinavian (Old Norse), but we do not know that the Scandinavian settlers actually invented the sub-division itself. Without those sorts of data, then even approximate formation dates are difficult to define. I would urge caution when using nomenclature as primary evidence for very much at all - just a brief understanding of the evolution of the word York out to convince people of that. Phonetic interpretations through different dominant languages cause havoc with understanding the origins, and in the case of York, we, once again, have no idea what the iron Age people in the area called that settlement.
2085:"The name of a county often gives a clue to how it was formed, either as a division that took its name from a centre of administration, an ancient kingdom, or an area occupied by an ethnic group. The majority of English counties are in the first category, with the name formed by combining the central town with the suffix "-shire", for example Yorkshire. Former kingdoms, which became earldoms in the united England did not feature this formulation; so for Kent, the former kingdom of the Jutes, "Kentshire" was not used. Counties ending in the suffix "-sex" are also in this category and are former Saxon kingdoms. Many of these names are formed from compass directions. The third category includes counties such as Cornwall and Devon where the name corresponds to the tribes who inhabited the area."
1859:
shared by many. I replied for reasons given above. BTW, I have only recently seen this discussion, hence the reason for the late contribution: the arguments used are just as valid in 2019 though. The circular debates happen everywhere in different articles on an ongoing basis, caused by the WP guidelines that state HC no longer exist within their earlier, pre-1888 boundaries. SagaCity, I am not sure of the line you are taking. Any opportunity to show that HC still have a verifiable function is welcome. That can be done by a 'positive' purpose such as those charities, and by 'negating' the arguments of those who state HC no longer exist, which is what I tried to do above. Anyway, perhaps I should have brought this up elsewhere.
2089:
taken from Bede, is correct. Evidence of much smaller kingdoms, later amalgamated, continues to mount up (for example, the lost county of
Winchcombeshire clearly once had a king, who evidently accepted subordination to the Kings of Mercia, and is later shown in charter witness lists as accepting progressively lower titles: "sub-regulus" (under-little-king), "dux" etc). And "Kent", for example, clearly takes its name from a pre-Roman kingdom whose name the Romans kept in their town names and which were then taken on by the Anglo-Saxons (like most people nowadays I doubt Bede's division between Angles, Saxons and Jutes, and anyway Bede does not make this the only ancient Jutish kingdom - he includes also the Isle of Wight).
2436:
far more confusing than
Bristol. However, the charters and letters patent issued to these places clearly state their various statuses at the time. In these charters there are listed all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of the burgesses, mayors and corporations as well as their exemptions from the writ of other administrations. In most of these charters it will specifically mention the models upon which the charter is based. Without looking specifically at the Bristolian charters (of which there will certainly be many - Southampton has over a dozen!), thereby it will cite that the grant of such and such privileges in the same manner as those granted to say London or some other place.
2425:
necessarily sufficient to consider it a separate county outright, unlike most of the County
Corporates the Quarter Sessions had the right to pass death sentences, effectively making it independent of the Gloucestershire Assize Court. Furthermore it was actually in the Western Circuit with Somerset etc. rather than the Oxford Circuit with Gloucestershire. That might indicate it was actually in Somerset, but the Avon was already established as the northern border of that, so potentially it rather looks like Bristol was, to all intents and purposes, separate from the surrounding counties.
2448:
various boundary changes around
Bournemouth, Christchurch, and the Isle of Wight, all of which were contained within that county). Whilst Hampshire is the popular name, it was officially recorded as the County of Southampton in all official documents and titles. The justices of the county of Southampton had no jurisdiction in the town, neither did the Sheriff, and vice versa. The town had its own, or in the case of the Reeve, he was the Port Reeve rather than the Shire Reeve. The Assizes for the county of Southampton were for the wider county, although these did sit in the town also.
1602:
entities that did not replace the hitherto existing shires/counties (HCs) that dated back, in some cases, to Saxon times. However, the 1888 Act did, very explicity, ammend the boundaries of the HCs so that they were aligned with the boundaries of the new ACs, and would remian so aligned when the boundaries of the ACs changed in future. There was with a slight twist in the cases of
Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Sussex, Suffolk, Northamptonshire, and Cambridgeshire, which would each contain several ACs based on Ridings etc. (a situation analogouous to today's Ceremonial Counites):
3052:
2307:
county"', 132,000 results for 'westmorland "historic county"', 31,300 for 'westmorland "ancient county"' and 26,500 for 'westmorland "traditional county"'. While I'm not claiming this is remotely definitive for the well-known reasons related to google searches, and I'm obviously not suggesting a page move or anything, for the article to suggest that, for the relevant subset of these counties, the terms currently listed are used and the term "former counties" isn't used is to be actively misleading, and to fail the basic requirement of
231:
354:
2060:"Your "personal beliefs" and opinions aren't really of much weight here." What was the purpose of this insult? I do apologise your highness! How dare you. My point stands. I think the county maps are misleading given the status of Monmouth as a county in England from 1535 to 1974 and in particular the fact that this article is supposed to present the counties in their historical context. Knowledge should not be pandering to the sensitivities of fragile Welshmen.
2772:
more useful than deleting it but on reflection it seemed better to take it out first before further editing the core of the article, which also has problems, and then reinstating something similar in the lead. Some of my concerns with what is currently there are mentioned in my edit summary, so I won't elaborate here. I would welcome any constructive comments you or anyone else might have. Incidentally, none of the deleted sentence was referenced.
523:
2444:, and it remained in this status until the 1960s when it was raised to city status, thus becoming, according to that charter, "the city and county of the city of Southampton".Its rights and privileges cite precedence in both London and Bristol, which is why I am happy to support the assertion about Bristol. The problem for many, and the source of a great deal of confusion for the unwary, was that there were two counties of Southampton!
408:
387:
621:
1027:
show that other sub-divisions of the nation existed, it was decided that pages relating to those older descriptions of location should be created. The title of those was variously suggested as traditional counties, geographical counties, ancient counties or historic counties. As you can see, historic counties was the term chosen (again by a consensus of a tiny number of individuals) to refer to this topic.
254:
831:. The term "Ancient" gives the impression of something from way, way back in time. The fact is many of those so-called "Ancient" counties, with boundary changes, still exist. The term "Historic" seems the best word to convey about the English counties. We read about history and historical events, and so I don't see anything wrong with "Historic counties of England" as the article title.
1692:(10) On that date the following local government areas existing immediately before that date outside Greater London and the Isles of Scilly, that is to say, all administrative counties, boroughs (except those in rural districts), urban districts, rural districts and urban parishes, shall cease to exist and the council of every such area which has a council shall also cease to exist.
418:
345:
513:
492:
1003:"Historic counties of England" is the wrong title for this it applies that there are counties which are in some way separate from the modern counties. In most cases this is simply not true. The current Lancashire is the Lancashire that has always existed the boundaries of these areas have changed over time but they are all the same county.--
1654:(b) the following administrative areas and their councils (and, in the case of a borough, the municipal corporation thereof) shall cease to exist, that is to say, the counties of London and Middlesex, the metropolitan boroughs, and any existing county borough, county district or parish the area of which falls wholly within Greater London;
1495:, who is claiming (without any evidence so far) that the opening sentence of the article should use the past tense - "were" rather than "are". I think the case is made in the article that they continue to exist for some purposes, but views of interested editors are sought. Incidentally, the wording used when the article was a
1784:
boundaries, or to abolish an HC, that is not more explicitly stated. The answer is very simple: because that was not, and never has been, the intent. But, cynic that I am, I expect yet more circular debates in WP that do nothing more than perpetuate the widespread misunderstanding of what has happened regarding UK counties.
2369:
paragraph above the table, where it reads "Some ancient counties have their names preserved in multiple contemporary counties, such as
Yorkshire in North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire..." - I just feel a note should be added to the table itself (for Yorkshire and Sussex) for a reader who skips straight to the table.
2945:
article is well referenced and discusses the various definitions of the region. Similarly, there are many ways in which
England can be divided. Roger's scheme is one, but at the very least it needs references. Beyond that, why this particular division? For example, if we're interested in historic
2901:
has removed the column of 'region' from the template because they are non-defined personal opinions. This assumes they are meant to be defined regions in the first place, as opposed to general, commonly used but not precise regions which I think is what they are. For that reason they don't have to be
2447:
The town and county of the town of
Southampton was confined to the five parishes of that mediaeval port city (which included the area of the old Saxon port of Hamwic, from which we derive Hampton, hence Southampton and Hants.) Then there was the area which today we would call Hampshire (ignoring the
2439:
Southampton was an important port and owned by the king (it was a royal manor). There are charters granting the status of county upon the town going back to the thirteenth century (it may have been fourteenth, I do not have my records to hand - but certainly in that period of time). It was officially
2435:
Well, of course, there are a great many sources, most of which are included in the repositories of the British Library, the NAtional Archives, the Parliamentary Archives or some similar place. I agree with the musings about Bristol. One of my own lengthy studies was on Southampton - a place which is
2208:
How can using a dictionary as a guide to usage be synthesis? That's exactly what a dictionary is for. "Former counties" is an extremely widely used alternative name for the subject of this article - much more widely used than many of the other synonyms included - and this fact should be reflected in
2130:
Markd999 finishes with "I would suggest the simple change "The name of a county often gives a clue to when it was formed" - but then we know from historical sources about when most of the shires were officially formed anyway, so why do we need a clue?" In what way does the name of a county provide a
2014:
The status of Monmouthshire prior to 1974 is a contentious issue so far as I can make out. I personally believe it was officially English from the 16th century, but many Welshmen - especially those now living in the modern (post 1974) county of Gwent which covers approximately the same area - resent
1353:
I've changed the text to make the point, but will revert. The terms "ancient" and "traditional" are referenced later in the para, and the term "ancient" therefore does not need to appear in the opening sentence. The point is that they are not unambiguously ancient, though they are sometimes called
1224:
Because your proposal only describes sections 1 and 2; sections 3 and 4 are on modifications the the counties as originally formed and section 5 is a list. If you would care to read the archives from the links you will see that this has be the subject of debate since 2003. Any proposal to change the
2791:
Section headings need to match the content, a section describing how some counties were restored as administrative areas can reasonably be titled "Restoration of historic county boundaries", or all sorts of variations on it, but "Official acknowledgement of historic county boundaries" is completely
2771:
Yes, of course the lead should summerise the article. The problem with the sentence that I deleted was that it does not actually do that. It does deal with an important issue that needs to be mentioned, but not in the way it is currently done. I had thought that a re-write of that sentence might be
2424:
Had a sudden thought about this, but based on the usual criteria might Bristol not actually qualify as a traditional/historic county in its own right a la the City of London? The establishment of the County Corporate removed it from the administration of Gloucestershire, and while I know this isn't
1018:
You obviously haven't looked at any of the material on this subject, here or elsewhere. For example, when you typed the word county did you mean geographical county, undetached county, Poor Law county, registration county, sanitary county, borough county, corporate county, ceremonial county, postal
879:
For what it's worth, if it was up to me the article wouldn't use "ancient" in its title as I feel the term is too strongly linked with ancient Rome and ancient Greece and may convey an odd image to the reader, but my opinion is immaterial in the face of sources which show that "ancient counties" is
2466:
A part of this article appears to serve as a propaganda promotion for the Association of British Counties which appears to believe in the fantasy that the counties defined in the 1888 local government act are sacrosanct and go back to ancient times even though the boundaries and status of counties
1626:
The Local Government Act 1933 repealed most parts the 1888 Act, including the above section, so it is possible the link between the boundaries of the HCs and ACs was broken at that time - I have not yet been able to source a copy of the text to check. Of course, it is equally possible the 1933 act
2126:
I have read the comments on this talk page with interest, but also with a growing concern that some assertions are not provable, and, in some cases, unlikely. As an example from Markd999's comments ""Kent", for example, clearly takes its name from a pre-Roman kingdom whose name the Romans kept in
1806:
How else can we make the point that counties exist for purposes other than governance? I know of several charitable trusts dating from Victorian times and earlier that are for the education of the children of Middlesex. Should we say that because Middlesex 'does not exist' no child should benefit
1783:
If a place was not in that new AC for the purposes of the act (such as the place's local football team made it eligible for inclusion in the HC football league -- nothing to do with local govt), then it was not treated as being in the new AC. One could also ask why, if the intent was to change HC
1518:
The Counties where and are given there existence by either acts of monarchs or parliament, they can equally be abolished by them. A statement like "ancient China stretches further south then today" would be nonsensical, To say "Ancient China stretched..." with the past tense is correct. It is the
1026:
Following a consensus (of 11 people) long before either you or I arrived here, it was decided that Knowledge would only refer to current local government areas in articles concerning the geography of the UK. More recent discussions have revealed that that decision is now set in stone. In order to
2088:
With respect, I find this misleading. The article elsewhere accepts that Yorkshire takes its name from the Viking Kingdom of York - although in fact this extended further north. And it is no longer possible to think that the nineteenth century concept of the heptarchy among Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms,
1858:
An apology of sorts, GH, for posting here in an old discussion. I perhaps should have started a new section somewhere. I replied here because there is very little comment anywhere that deals in detail with the reasons why HC do NOT exist. The IP user gave a good legal reason that I think will be
1452:
There is no clear consensus. There was no objection to the last move, which was well advertised in advance - presumably because no-one thought it was very important either way. What is important is that the text is clear, and that redirects are in place. If you want to start a new discussion,
2306:
been superseded though (at least under the usual mainstream interpretation), "former counties" is among the most common terms, more common than some of the other terms that are listed in the article. An unscientific but nonetheless revealing google search gives 161,000 for 'westmorland "former
1713:
been explicitly abolished, which leaves them in a kind of limbo. Either they still have the boundaries they had on 31 March 1965 (within Greater London)/31 March 1974 (elsewhere), or else they have no boundaries at all and no area. Which of those possibilities is the case is, I think, a purely
818:
It not so much what is the most popular term to be used on Knowledge but how many Wikipedians vote for which one is to be used. Going by Google seaches the most popular term is "Traditional counties of England" with about 3,500,000 results, followed by "Historic counties of England" with about
2368:
No, you've missed my point. Both Yorkshire and Sussex are listed in the table with "disestablished 1974" which is correct, but a linked footnote should be added to point out that they are still recognised in the ceremonial county system albeit as two or more counties. This is mentioned in the
2110:
Do "we know from historical sources about when most of the shires were officially formed"? In some cases we do, but I'm not sure that it's most cases. One possibility might be - as well as tweaking the summary text - to include a new column or two in the table of counties, to describe their
1601:
I'm not going to make any changes to the article, but having examined the legislation it would seem the actual situation is a combination of what both sides have tried to assert here. The Local Government Act 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41) created Administrative Counties (ACs). These were new
1254:
Shouldn't the correct term be 'historical' rather than 'historic' counties? 'Historic' means an event of significance in the past, 'historical' means something which took place in the past. For instance, the Battle of Hastings was a historic event, my brother's birth was a historical event.
2920:
Deciding that England has only three parts is bizarre: inhabitants in Cornwall and Norfolk, will be surprised they are in "Southern England"; as will Cheshire and Lincolnshire in finding themselves in "The Midlands". If people are determined to assign counties to regions, then at least use
2134:
The evolution of the various kingdoms and territories during the period between the legions leaving and the Normans arriving is incredibly complex, and many changes were short-lived. The ebb and flow of the power of particular lords (kings) and the hegemony that they exercised is not fully
1948:
While part of the stem of the word is Old French - The book I have on Middlesex states the County system was introduced in 900 A.D. similarly Chambers includes a shire in possible definitions. The problem is prior to the Doomsday book things are vague. But it would be useful to have a more
1833:
Why has this question arisen again now? Are changes to the article being proposed? Otherwise, it seems odd for an editor to "expect yet more circular debates" when it had been over three years since the previous posting in this thread, and I had thought the matter had been resolved.
2333:
In the table towards the bottom of the article, surely it should be somehow noted that Sussex and Yorkshire are recognised in the ceremonial counties of the present-day, albeit they are divided into 2 or more ceremonial counties (but all have either Yorkshire or Sussex in their name).
1774:
It did no such thing and IMO is another classic case of misreading what something says, in this case a piece of legislation. Where does it say that a place moved from an HC to an AC? All it says is what it says, that a place will be treated as in the new AC for all purposes if,
740:
The decision was made last July as a result of the discussion at the top of this page, which showed 4 editors in favour of the move from "Historic" to "Ancient" and none opposed. "Ancient counties" is a technical term, not a comparison with more ancient civilisations.
1300:
If the term "ancient" is used in scholarly sources, I suggest that be explained, rather than being added into the text without explanation. Divisions dating back a thousand years or so are obviously not "ancient" in archaeological or geological terms, for example.
2428:
Any particular reason it's not considered an historic county (considerations over complexities such as Islandshire and Norhamshire etc.?) or is it just one of those things where everyone (including official groups) has assumed something without it being the case.
2092:
Forgive the length of this comment. I would suggest the simple change "The name of a county often gives a clue to when it was formed" - but then we know from historical sources about when most of the shires were officially formed anyway, so why do we need a clue?
1768:(2) A place which is part of an administrative county for the purposes of this Act shall, subject as in this Act mentioned form part of that county for all purposes, whether sheriff lieutenant, custos rotulorum, justices, militia, coroner or other; Provided that—
1607:(2) A place which is part of an administrative county for the purposes of this Act shall, subject as in this Act mentioned form part of that county for all purposes, whether sheriff lieutenant, custos rotulorum, justices, militia, coroner or other; Provided that—
2547:
3066:
section currently contains the picture reproduced here. Its caption is problematic, because none of the county names in the picture are actually recorded in the Domesday Book as such. Rather, the actual Domesday Book uses older spellings, as in
1551:
Yes they are that is what they where created for. The may have been other things before they where counties but that is what they became. They are simple constructs of government and have been changed by them at there will. If I was to refer to
2950:
included Staffordshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire; and for a long period, the Marches were a more important region than the Midlands; if we're interest in modern definitions, then the government regions linked by Bazza are in use.
864:
who back each other up, whether right or wrong. The fact is that the more popular, common terms are "Traditional" and "Historic" counties, but doesn't mean a thing to Knowledge because there aren't enough users to vote for commonsense.
3071:. The situation is sadly muddled by the fact that most online reproductions of the book "helpfully" modernise the names, with only the modern spellings that aren't actually in the book being searchable, however any look at the actual
2902:
cited - they are commonly understood. We would not expect a reference to confirm the Poland is in the region of eastern Europe. I think if anything should be questioned it is the relevance of the template as a whole, not parts of it.
2001:
Frankly, these are the only "purposes" that have any real meaning for counties anyway. So are we in fact saying here that Monmouthshire was actually an English county until 1974 - when the provisions of the 1972 Act came into effect?
2349:
There are some local goverment 'aficionados' that patrol these pages who may provide a more precise explanation but in brief I think the reason for their omission is that 'ceremonial counties' are defined through legislation and the
1615:(a) Notwithstanding this enactment each of the entire counties of York, Lincoln, Sussex, Suffolk, Northampton, and Cambridge shall continue to be one county for the said purposes so far as it is one county at the passing of this Act
1904:
Similarly there existed London Boroughs before this time. Likewise the reference to London being a county since 1131 is not supported by its link. A county is not defined as any governing body hence the Liberty of Westminster.
315:
153:
819:
1,290,000 results, and "Ancient counties of England" with about 561,000 results. And so what do Wikipedians vote for? They vote for the least popular term. No doubt if enough Wikipedians voted that the Earth is flat, then the
2237:, etc. - which are not historic counties covered by this article. Suggesting that the term "former counties" is an interchangeable term for the traditional or ancient counties is wrong, confusing, and wholly unnecessary.
781:
Well really its the pre-1889 counties that are/were the ancient ones. Laughable or not "ancient county" is the term used by for instance the Ordnance Survey and publications by the Royal Historical Society: in other words
296:
2548:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110720050618/http://www.psc.gov.uk/postcomm/live/policy-and-consultations/consultations/postcode-address-file--changing-postal-addresses/2010_05_20_PAF_COP_DECISION_DOCUMENT_FINAL.pdf
3147:
1022:
The administrative counties have (generally) had two existences, from 1889 to 1974 and separately from 1974 to the present day, being abolished on 31 March 1974 and new ones with the same names created the next
1967:, phonetically shire. The book that you have on Middlesex stating that the county system was introduced in 900 AD presumably has a specific reference to support that assertion, perhaps you could share it here?
1134:
I've struck out the word 'historic' in my earlier post. Obviously I'll have be very careful with my wording in future or it'll be jumped upon. Besides, there are historic counties which don't exist anymore -
2551:
2255:
does it say that only alternative names that are absolutely unique to the subject of the article should be mentioned in the lead. That would be absurd - it would imply that the lead of the article on the
244:
713:, but I find it too much to call the pre-1974 counties of England as ancient. In living memory there are many people who remember those pre-1974 counties, so to call them ancient is laughable. Through a
3142:
1262:
3075:
will reveal that the old spellings and only the old spellings are in the actual book. I have no opinion on whether the caption should be changed or the image replaced by the latter. There is also
2189:
with no differentiation between them! Other entries in this dictionary are of Stamford Bridge as a village in "Humberside". This unreliability makes the use of dictionaries in this way unusable.
880:
used officially. In short, if you fail to address why some institutions use this phrase. Questioning the motives of others when your argument is failing is weak, both in integrity and effect.
2677:
2463:
Similarly to your point about Bristol and Southampton, is it not carved into one of the towers of the Tyne Bride "the City and County of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne" (a county corporate since 1400).
2251:
If this was a suggested page move you'd have a point as "former counties" would be insufficient as a disambiguator. This is just one of the alternative names in a lead though. Nowhere in
147:
3172:
846:
The above comment does not address the points raised by Lozleader, ie: that the term "ancient county" is used by the Ordnance Survey and institutions such as the Bristol Archives.
794:
1382:
Quite - so move the last sentence of the para up to follow the opening sentence. The referencing should go in the article text not the lede, so some text may need to be added.
1082:
2876:
1762:
makes, (four years ago!), a constructive reasoned contribution to this painfully neverending debate. Supposedly, the below quoted part of the 1888 act changed the HC boundaries:
824:
358:
44:
1285:, with more scholarly/reliable sources using ancient. It is the 'historic origin' and 'establishment in antiquity' that these words refer to. Either will probably do the job.
1500:
260:
2552:
http://www.psc.gov.uk/postcomm/live/policy-and-consultations/consultations/postcode-address-file--changing-postal-addresses/2010_05_20_PAF_COP_DECISION_DOCUMENT_FINAL.pdf
2998:
1694:(11) On that date the municipal corporation of every borough outside Greater London (and the corporation of a borough included in a rural district) shall cease to exist.
1519:
same with the counties. That some people think China should expand to cover it's whole imperial domain is irrelevant, it doesn't me the ancient China exists in anyway.--
1168:
This is one of the cases where Knowledge is using a 'least worst' term that causes minimum confusion. If there was a better one I think we'd have come across it by now.
2557:
1714:
philosophical debate. What is clear though, is that they don't have the ancient Saxon/Norman boundaries so beloved of the ABC and their ilk. That boat sailed in 1888.
3187:
2311:- "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic".
464:
2567:
2181:
despite them both having the same administrative status. The 2001 Merriam-Webster dictionary is spectacularly unreliable: The third definition of "Suffolk" is of a
1148:
895:
3162:
2709:
2705:
2691:
2599:
2595:
2581:
3202:
595:
585:
2432:
Of course, sans sources there's not much we can do here due to the OR issues, but it might be worth a footnote.15:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)ImperatordeElysium
3177:
2678:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150225132725/http://www.ecb.co.uk/development/get-into-cricket/development-structure-and-contacts/county-boards%2C67%2CBP.html
3137:
1687:
Finally, in England outside of Greater London, the Local Government Act 1972 (1972 c.70) abolished all ACs and their subdivisions, effective 1 April 1974:
1320:
1282:
202:
198:
194:
190:
79:
3207:
3182:
3157:
2135:
understood. Therefore to draw firm conclusions about the later evolution of counties is perhaps misleading, and contrary to the mission of Knowledge
2941:
We absolutely should have a reference to say that Poland is in Eastern Europe. The Poland article describes it as being in Central Europe, and our
2681:
861:
474:
3167:
3021:
797:
3197:
1090:
85:
1950:
1930:
168:
2260:
should not mention that it is also called "Spaghetti Junction", on the basis that there are other junctions that also have that nickname.
135:
1123:
2844:
2402:
1909:
Knowledge has about 8 articles all overlapping the subject of what is a county but none give any references in any definition sections
1266:
3192:
3068:
2517:
1759:
1721:
1533:
As administrative areas for local government, that is true. But the whole point, to which you seem to be oblivious, is that they are
1078:
1034:
917:
Finally you front up an produce some sources. It's much more effective than alluding to conspiracies and bleating about flatearthers.
557:
553:
549:
536:
497:
440:
240:
2558:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140913012626/http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/eastyorkshire/11388043.Welcome_to_Yorkshire_sign_unveiled/
2687:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
2577:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
2468:
2039:
1438:
The discussion on this page would suggest to me a consensus exits for ancient, aside from one vocal dissenter who moved the page.
2917:
I don't see what they add. If a reader wants to know where a particular county is or was, then its own article will divulge this.
2568:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120326213359/http://www.hampshirehighsheriff.org.uk/Previous%20High%20Sheriffs%20of%20Hampshire.php
1182:
Then should we change the name of this article to "The Origins of the counties of England" that way we can avoid any qualifier.--
3028:
that may be an interest of watchers of this page. It could impact this article down the line, noting previous discussions here.
230:
3152:
2467:
has been been fluid since 900 AD or so and such changes have continued with revisions in the 1960s 1974, the 1990s, and 2000s.
1888:
and Middlesex is only mentioned once and that is to say the word in previous acts should be treated as the new governing body.
99:
30:
129:
2869:
2561:
2527:
2507:
1086:
104:
20:
672:
Explain how sanitary provision/poor law were based on the counties, but started a process of ignoring the ancient boundaries
764:
431:
392:
74:
2571:
2165:
which does not support the expression "former counties". For instance the online Oxford Dictionary refers to Yorkhire as
1992:"It was considered to be a county of England for parliamentary purposes until 1950 and for local government until 1974"
125:
3076:
3063:
3006:
2884:
2752:
2661:
2642:
2537:
2491:
1406:
1066:
981:
932:
760:
718:
629:
367:
24:
1630:
The London Government Act 1963 (1963 c. 33) abolished all pre-existing administrative entities within Greater London:
1402:
1316:
722:
65:
2991:
1949:
substantial reference than wiki's current one if their were units Jarldoms etc whcih merely had their names changed.
1556:
as being existent because a lot of people regret it's passing it would be foolish, but that is what you are doing.--
175:
2821:
I think that's as good as the previous title, neither are really perfect, but it's good to keep the heading brief.
756:
185:
3051:
2011:
Look, it is no good simply referring the reader to some article written in a magazine. WHAT ARE THESE "PURPOSES"?
243:. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check
3084:
2682:
http://www.ecb.co.uk/development/get-into-cricket/development-structure-and-contacts/county-boards%2C67%2CBP.html
2257:
2708:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
2598:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
211:
2302:
clearly isn't a former county, it is a county whose borders have changed over the years. For the counties that
2031:
1954:
1934:
2987:
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
2865:
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
799:. "Historic counties" is much more makey-uppy. And yes, the Welsh counties should bbe retitled as "ancient".
3002:
2970:
2907:
2880:
2851:
2777:
2743:
2669:
2633:
2499:
2409:
1864:
1789:
1561:
1553:
1524:
1424:
Feel free to make another formal proposal, though as you say this has been discussed on previous occasions.
1215:
1201:
1187:
1159:
1119:
1098:
1052:
1038:
1008:
989:
940:
908:
870:
836:
772:
730:
109:
3113:
on account of the decorative font used and the background colouring, despite ] showing the original names.
2472:
2453:
2391:
2351:
2234:
2140:
1972:
1725:
1705:
In light of all the above, it seems clear that HCs could be argued to exist insofar as they have not been
141:
253:
2956:
2826:
2797:
2727:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
2715:
2617:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
2605:
2111:
formation. Or, if that makes the table unwieldy, to add a new table. Would you like to take that on?
2042:, when the county was formed. Your "personal beliefs" and opinions aren't really of much weight here.
541:
528:
373:
2668:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
2498:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
2449:
2387:
2136:
1968:
2965:
Ok, the column doesn't really add anything and is inviting edit wars so removing it is probably best.
1643:(a) no part of Greater London shall form part of any administrative county, county district or parish;
790:), and for the most part cannot be dated. It's also a widely used term eg by the Essex Record Office
3110:
3095:
3080:
2947:
2316:
2265:
2218:
2146:
2065:
2061:
2020:
2016:
1717:
1258:
1111:
625:
1986:
This part of the article is very poorly written and requires in my opinion an honest re-evaluation.
344:
2518:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060627013244/http://www.stamforduk.co.uk/index.cfm?id=597&tid=204
2096:
1913:
1812:
1676:(d) the urban districts of Staines and Sunbury-on-Thames shall become part of the county of Surrey.
1461:
1230:
1173:
1152:
1074:
804:
161:
55:
2401:
This is precisely the sort of misinformed and misunderstood confusion I have recently tried, here,
439:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2966:
2922:
2903:
2847:
2812:
2773:
2405:
2374:
2339:
2242:
2116:
2100:
2047:
1860:
1839:
1785:
1741:
1591:
1583:
1557:
1542:
1520:
1508:
1492:
1472:
1429:
1387:
1359:
1344:
1306:
1211:
1197:
1183:
1155:
1115:
1094:
1048:
1004:
985:
958:
936:
904:
866:
832:
768:
746:
726:
561:
216:
70:
2712:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
2602:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
2354:
read in conjunction with the relevant local government legislation excludes these two counties.
2728:
2618:
3118:
3035:
2930:
2289:
786:. I think the point is that their origins are "in antiquity" (not sure if that is the same as
51:
1927:
is because it is not simply an invention of the Post Office but a term that already existed.
725:
without any clear consensus. The article should revert back until a clear consensus is made.
2952:
2898:
2822:
2807:"Recognition" seems to me to be a neutral description of the processes that have occurred.
2793:
2359:
1963:
County is a French term and arrived here with the Normans. The word used by the English was
1368:
The changed text doesn't really reflect the literature. The terms are used interchangeably.
899:
213:
2735:
2625:
2521:
3122:
3088:
3041:
3010:
2974:
2960:
2934:
2911:
2888:
2855:
2830:
2816:
2801:
2781:
2757:
2647:
2562:
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/eastyorkshire/11388043.Welcome_to_Yorkshire_sign_unveiled/
2528:
https://web.archive.org/web/20061016181956/http://www.domesdaybook.net/helpfiles/hs760.htm
2508:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070210135741/http://www.domesdaybook.net/helpfiles/hs885.htm
2476:
2457:
2413:
2395:
2378:
2363:
2343:
2320:
2312:
2293:
2269:
2261:
2246:
2222:
2214:
2200:
2195:
2162:
2150:
2120:
2104:
2069:
2051:
2024:
1976:
1958:
1938:
1868:
1843:
1816:
1793:
1745:
1729:
1595:
1565:
1546:
1528:
1512:
1476:
1447:
1433:
1418:
1391:
1377:
1363:
1348:
1332:
1310:
1294:
1270:
1234:
1219:
1205:
1191:
1177:
1163:
1144:
1127:
1107:
That isn't what the title say's. "The origins of the counties of England" would say that.
1102:
1056:
1042:
1012:
993:
962:
944:
926:
912:
889:
874:
855:
840:
808:
787:
776:
750:
734:
698:
755:
I still find it laughable to call the pre-1974 counties as ancient. Are we to assume the
1665:(c) the urban district of Potters Bar shall become part of the county of Hertfordshire ;
215:
3025:
2942:
2694:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
2584:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
2308:
1808:
1574:
I've reverted the wording to the present tense, as has been maintained in this article
1454:
1443:
1414:
1373:
1328:
1290:
1226:
1169:
1030:
922:
885:
851:
800:
706:
545:
423:
2734:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
2624:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
2572:
http://www.hampshirehighsheriff.org.uk/Previous%20High%20Sheriffs%20of%20Hampshire.php
901:
3131:
3101:
3056:
2983:
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
2861:
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
2808:
2538:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110728134542/http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/27002
2370:
2335:
2281:
2238:
2230:
2112:
2043:
1998:- from WHEN was it considered to be a part of England for local government purposes?
1924:
1835:
1755:
1737:
1587:
1538:
1504:
1468:
1425:
1383:
1355:
1340:
1302:
954:
742:
710:
827:. The term "Traditional" is too controversial with some Wikipedians who see it as a
3114:
3030:
2926:
2299:
2285:
2280:
is a historic county but not a former county (and so are many other counties), and
1891:
To abolish a county is probably constitutionally impossible without a Royal decree
1709:
abolished. However, their boundaries are legally defined in terms of entities that
1579:
1496:
783:
714:
702:
407:
386:
3022:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject UK geography#Describing historic counties in past tense
2531:
2511:
1995:- from WHEN was it considered to be a part of England for parliamentary purposes?
3099:
548:
on Knowledge. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can
2701:
2591:
2355:
2252:
2210:
1140:
828:
2169:
directly refuting the citation. Furthermore it refers to Greater Manchester as
791:
2768:
2700:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
2590:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
2190:
1884:
1136:
677:
Give origin of each county (+approximate date of establishment where possible)
518:
413:
2541:
1439:
1410:
1369:
1324:
1286:
918:
881:
847:
2173:. Collins Dictionary is similarly inconsistent. It refers to Cheshire as a
2277:
1147:. The remaining historic counties have had their boundaries redrawn. The
544:
dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the
3106:(I'm assuming that the boundaries the map shows are suitably accurate.)
436:
980:
After nearly two months and no objections I've moved the page back to
1154:". So that is why the term is used on Knowledge for those counties.
935:" since the official, current Government department uses that term.
3098:: Change the caption to reflect what the image shows. For example,
512:
491:
3072:
3050:
820:
1401:
Looking over the history of page moves the evidence supplied for
1073:
origins of the counties, hence its page title. There are various
949:
Although I hate the idea of regarding Eric Pickles as "reliable"
717:
unilateral decision last year the article title was changed from
903:
I doubt you can get more official than a Government department.
611:
338:
217:
15:
1881:
This claim may in fact be apocryphal looking into 1963 act:
951:(or indeed my being mistaken for a member of the "GM gang")
3148:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
2672:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
2502:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1736:
Legally, perhaps. But, for some, that is not the point.
2008:"and for most purposes it was regarded as part of Wales"
2925:
than the made-up three which were used here previously.
2522:
http://www.stamforduk.co.uk/index.cfm?id=597&tid=204
2665:
2495:
1575:
653:
647:
641:
635:
308:
289:
2839:
There is a proposed change to dealing with UK counties
2157:
Use of dictionaries for nomenclature "former counties"
1923:
Similarly the reason a start date cannot be given for
160:
3143:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
2386:
Why do you say Yorkshire was disestablished in 1974?
1083:
Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England
2032:
Monmouthshire (historic)#Ambiguity over Welsh status
825:
Knowledge:Polling is not a substitute for discussion
435:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2704:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
2594:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
931:
Perhaps then this article should be moved back to "
1339:We are edit conflicting. Please discuss it here.
953:, I'd have no concerns about changing the title.
259:This article appeared on Knowledge's Main Page as
1019:county, sporting county or administrative county?
1627:abolished all forms of county except the ACs...
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
3100:Map of the counties of England recorded in the
2532:http://www.domesdaybook.net/helpfiles/hs760.htm
2512:http://www.domesdaybook.net/helpfiles/hs885.htm
2284:is a former county but not a historic county.--
1149:Department for Communities and Local Government
896:Department for Communities and Local Government
2997:Participate in the deletion discussion at the
2875:Participate in the deletion discussion at the
2690:This message was posted before February 2018.
2580:This message was posted before February 2018.
2442:the town and county of the town of Southampton
2404:to remove from wp articles about UK counties.
767:, etc. should be renamed as Ancient counties?
3173:Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Geography
2229:I agree. There are many "former counties" -
1077:depending which users are interested in. The
174:
8:
2171:"a former metropolitan county of NW England"
898:use the term "historic counties of England".
3055:The Counties of England as recorded in the
1151:use the term historic counties of England "
3016:Describing historic counties in past tense
2660:I have just modified one external link on
2542:http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/27002
2144:
2015:the fact and try to obfuscate the matter.
1715:
1256:
486:
381:
268:
225:
2490:I have just modified 7 external links on
1457:, by advertising your suggestion using a
1315:Perhaps we should rename the article to
3188:Mid-importance England-related articles
1453:please go through the proper processes
1263:2A00:23C5:6409:5701:D0AD:6496:DE12:A558
534:This article falls within the scope of
488:
383:
342:
3109:The older map you referred to is less
2846:and comment, if anyone is interested.
2185:, whereas the fourth refers to simply
2036:I'll tweak the article here to mention
1877:Did the 1963 act abolish any counties?
1409:probably should not have taken place.
1405:seems to be stronger, and the move to
3163:Knowledge vital articles in Geography
1916:is mistakenly equating with the term
1091:Postal counties of the United Kingdom
7:
3203:Mid-importance UK geography articles
2787:Section headings which match content
1225:name again must be in that context.
429:This article is within the scope of
3178:B-Class vital articles in Geography
1578:, including the time when it was a
372:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
3138:Knowledge former featured articles
1079:Administrative counties of England
570:Knowledge:WikiProject UK geography
14:
2664:. Please take a moment to review
2494:. Please take a moment to review
1781:for the purposes of the 1888 LGA.
682:Make more succinct where possible
573:Template:WikiProject UK geography
3208:Knowledge pages with to-do lists
3183:B-Class England-related articles
3158:Knowledge level-5 vital articles
2175:"a former administrative county"
823:article would state it is flat.
619:
521:
511:
490:
416:
406:
385:
352:
343:
252:
229:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
693:"Ancient" counties of England!?
590:This article has been rated as
469:This article has been rated as
3168:B-Class level-5 vital articles
2167:"a county of northern England"
1087:Ceremonial counties of England
994:14:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
562:how to write about settlements
1:
3198:B-Class UK geography articles
3104:, showing their modern names.
3026:Talk:Yorkshire#"Was a county"
3020:Hi, there are discussions at
2831:22:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2817:22:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2802:22:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2782:18:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2758:06:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
2321:11:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
2294:22:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
2270:18:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
2247:09:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
2223:18:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
2201:08:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
2177:, but Bedfordshire as simply
2070:23:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
1596:22:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1566:15:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1547:15:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1535:not just administrative areas
1529:15:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1513:15:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1477:10:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1448:10:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1434:09:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1419:09:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1392:09:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1378:09:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1364:09:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1349:09:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1333:09:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1311:09:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1295:09:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
765:Historic counties of Colorado
449:Knowledge:WikiProject England
443:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
3123:19:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
3089:18:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
2975:03:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
2961:23:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
2935:09:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
2923:something more authoritative
2912:03:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
2856:07:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
2662:Historic counties of England
2492:Historic counties of England
2458:03:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
2414:20:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
2396:03:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
2379:09:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
2364:01:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
2344:23:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
2151:03:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
2121:20:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
2105:19:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
2040:Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542
1977:03:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
1894:The act creates the GLC but
1407:Historic counties of England
1283:both found in the literature
1235:20:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
1220:20:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
1206:19:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
1196:Oppose article name change.
1192:19:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
1178:15:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
1164:15:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
1128:14:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
1103:13:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
1067:Historic counties of England
1057:14:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
1043:11:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
1013:20:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
999:Historic counties of England
982:Historic counties of England
933:Historic counties of England
761:Historic counties of Ontario
719:Historic counties of England
630:Historic counties of England
452:Template:WikiProject England
237:Historic counties of England
25:Historic counties of England
3042:02:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
1635:(1) As from 1st April 1965—
1403:Ancient counties of England
1317:Ancient counties of England
1277:Comment on ancient/historic
1047:No not before I was here.--
723:Ancient counties of England
550:join us at the project page
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
3224:
2721:(last update: 5 June 2024)
2657:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
2611:(last update: 5 June 2024)
2487:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
2038:The article refers to the
1959:14:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
1944:When was a county a county
1939:14:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
1271:17:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
757:Historic counties of Wales
596:project's importance scale
475:project's importance scale
297:Featured article candidate
3193:WikiProject England pages
3011:11:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
2889:15:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
2792:unsupported by the text.
2477:03:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
2440:named in the charters as
2258:Gravelly Hill Interchange
2052:09:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
2030:This is all discussed at
2025:02:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
1869:13:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
1844:12:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
1817:10:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
1794:08:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
1746:17:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
1730:16:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
963:19:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
945:16:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
927:16:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
913:16:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
890:15:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
875:15:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
856:14:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
841:14:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
809:15:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
777:14:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
751:14:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
735:14:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
589:
506:
468:
401:
380:
329:
271:
267:
247:) and why it was removed.
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
2648:18:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
793:, Surrey History Centre
537:WikiProject UK geography
455:England-related articles
261:Today's featured article
2870:Bedfordshire's Flag.svg
2653:External links modified
2483:External links modified
1586:is currently blocked.
332:Former featured article
316:Featured article review
241:former featured article
3153:B-Class vital articles
3059:
2352:Lieutenancies Act 1997
2298:That's a good point -
2235:Hereford and Worcester
1771:
1698:
1682:
1621:
1554:Liverpool Sailors Home
245:the nomination archive
75:avoid personal attacks
3054:
2161:This is a highly-POV
1765:
1754:In a discussion with
1701:– Sect. 1 Paras 10–11
1689:
1632:
1604:
1319:, given that term is
1281:Ancient/historic are
1081:were replaced by the
1069:article is about the
576:UK geography articles
529:United Kingdom portal
359:level-5 vital article
100:Neutral point of view
3047:"As recorded in D-B"
2992:FlagOfLancashire.svg
2948:Council of the North
2702:regular verification
2592:regular verification
2329:Sussex and Yorkshire
2082:Current text reads:
796:or Bristol Archives
105:No original research
2692:After February 2018
2582:After February 2018
1918:geographical county
1914:ceremonial counties
1779:, it is in that AC
1623:– Sect. 59 Para. 2
1491:We have an editor,
1075:Counties of England
667:Gain GA / FA status
432:WikiProject England
263:on August 29, 2004.
3077:this older version
3060:
3003:Community Tech bot
2881:Community Tech bot
2843:Please visit here
2746:InternetArchiveBot
2697:InternetArchiveBot
2636:InternetArchiveBot
2587:InternetArchiveBot
2420:Musings on Bristol
1684:– Sect. 3 Para. 1
1584:User:Kitchen Knife
1493:User:Kitchen Knife
659:Updated 2023-05-11
560:and guidelines on
368:content assessment
272:Article milestones
86:dispute resolution
47:
2946:definitions, the
2722:
2612:
2199:
2153:
1898:a Greater London
1732:
1720:comment added by
1273:
1261:comment added by
1131:
1114:comment added by
952:
690:
689:
610:
609:
606:
605:
602:
601:
485:
484:
481:
480:
337:
336:
325:
324:
224:
223:
66:Assume good faith
43:
3215:
3105:
3038:
3033:
2899:user:Warofdreams
2756:
2747:
2720:
2719:
2698:
2646:
2637:
2610:
2609:
2588:
2209:the lead as per
2193:
1809:S a g a C i t y
1580:featured article
1497:Featured Article
1466:
1460:
1227:S a g a C i t y
1170:S a g a C i t y
1130:
1108:
950:
784:reliable sources
660:
623:
622:
612:
578:
577:
574:
571:
568:
552:where there are
531:
526:
525:
524:
515:
508:
507:
502:
494:
487:
457:
456:
453:
450:
447:
426:
421:
420:
419:
410:
403:
402:
397:
389:
382:
365:
356:
355:
348:
347:
339:
330:Current status:
311:
292:
269:
256:
233:
226:
218:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
3223:
3222:
3218:
3217:
3216:
3214:
3213:
3212:
3128:
3127:
3096:ReadOnlyAccount
3081:ReadOnlyAccount
3049:
3036:
3031:
3018:
2999:nomination page
2985:
2896:
2877:nomination page
2863:
2841:
2789:
2765:
2750:
2745:
2713:
2706:have permission
2696:
2670:this simple FaQ
2655:
2640:
2635:
2603:
2596:have permission
2586:
2500:this simple FaQ
2485:
2422:
2331:
2183:"former county"
2159:
2080:
1984:
1946:
1879:
1489:
1464:
1458:
1321:more often used
1279:
1145:Huntingdonshire
1109:
1001:
788:time immemorial
699:ancient history
695:
686:
685:
634:
620:
575:
572:
569:
566:
565:
527:
522:
520:
500:
454:
451:
448:
445:
444:
422:
417:
415:
395:
366:on Knowledge's
363:
353:
307:
288:
220:
219:
214:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
3221:
3219:
3211:
3210:
3205:
3200:
3195:
3190:
3185:
3180:
3175:
3170:
3165:
3160:
3155:
3150:
3145:
3140:
3130:
3129:
3126:
3125:
3107:
3062:The article's
3048:
3045:
3017:
3014:
2995:
2994:
2984:
2981:
2980:
2979:
2978:
2977:
2943:Eastern Europe
2938:
2937:
2918:
2895:
2892:
2873:
2872:
2862:
2859:
2840:
2837:
2836:
2835:
2834:
2833:
2788:
2785:
2764:
2761:
2740:
2739:
2732:
2685:
2684:
2676:Added archive
2654:
2651:
2630:
2629:
2622:
2575:
2574:
2566:Added archive
2564:
2556:Added archive
2554:
2546:Added archive
2544:
2536:Added archive
2534:
2526:Added archive
2524:
2516:Added archive
2514:
2506:Added archive
2484:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2464:
2421:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2330:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2158:
2155:
2149:comment added
2124:
2123:
2079:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2055:
2054:
2005:I also quote:
1983:
1980:
1951:90.193.131.216
1945:
1942:
1931:90.193.131.216
1921:
1920:
1908:
1878:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1772:
1763:
1749:
1748:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1599:
1598:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1488:
1487:Do they exist?
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1351:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1278:
1275:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1000:
997:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
707:ancient Greece
694:
691:
688:
687:
684:
683:
679:
678:
674:
673:
669:
668:
662:
617:
615:
608:
607:
604:
603:
600:
599:
592:Mid-importance
588:
582:
581:
579:
546:United Kingdom
533:
532:
516:
504:
503:
501:Mid‑importance
495:
483:
482:
479:
478:
471:Mid-importance
467:
461:
460:
458:
441:the discussion
428:
427:
424:England portal
411:
399:
398:
396:Mid‑importance
390:
378:
377:
371:
349:
335:
334:
327:
326:
323:
322:
319:
312:
304:
303:
300:
293:
285:
284:
281:
278:
274:
273:
265:
264:
257:
249:
248:
234:
222:
221:
212:
210:
209:
206:
205:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3220:
3209:
3206:
3204:
3201:
3199:
3196:
3194:
3191:
3189:
3186:
3184:
3181:
3179:
3176:
3174:
3171:
3169:
3166:
3164:
3161:
3159:
3156:
3154:
3151:
3149:
3146:
3144:
3141:
3139:
3136:
3135:
3133:
3124:
3120:
3116:
3112:
3111:WP:ACCESSIBLE
3108:
3103:
3102:Domesday Book
3097:
3093:
3092:
3091:
3090:
3086:
3082:
3078:
3074:
3070:
3065:
3058:
3057:Domesday Book
3053:
3046:
3044:
3043:
3040:
3039:
3034:
3027:
3023:
3015:
3013:
3012:
3008:
3004:
3000:
2993:
2990:
2989:
2988:
2982:
2976:
2972:
2968:
2967:Roger 8 Roger
2964:
2963:
2962:
2959:
2958:
2954:
2949:
2944:
2940:
2939:
2936:
2932:
2928:
2924:
2919:
2916:
2915:
2914:
2913:
2909:
2905:
2904:Roger 8 Roger
2900:
2893:
2891:
2890:
2886:
2882:
2878:
2871:
2868:
2867:
2866:
2860:
2858:
2857:
2853:
2849:
2848:Roger 8 Roger
2845:
2838:
2832:
2829:
2828:
2824:
2820:
2819:
2818:
2814:
2810:
2806:
2805:
2804:
2803:
2800:
2799:
2795:
2786:
2784:
2783:
2779:
2775:
2774:Roger 8 Roger
2770:
2762:
2760:
2759:
2754:
2749:
2748:
2737:
2733:
2730:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2717:
2711:
2707:
2703:
2699:
2693:
2688:
2683:
2679:
2675:
2674:
2673:
2671:
2667:
2663:
2658:
2652:
2650:
2649:
2644:
2639:
2638:
2627:
2623:
2620:
2616:
2615:
2614:
2607:
2601:
2597:
2593:
2589:
2583:
2578:
2573:
2569:
2565:
2563:
2559:
2555:
2553:
2549:
2545:
2543:
2539:
2535:
2533:
2529:
2525:
2523:
2519:
2515:
2513:
2509:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2501:
2497:
2493:
2488:
2482:
2478:
2474:
2470:
2465:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2455:
2451:
2445:
2443:
2437:
2433:
2430:
2426:
2419:
2415:
2411:
2407:
2406:Roger 8 Roger
2403:
2400:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2393:
2389:
2380:
2376:
2372:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2361:
2357:
2353:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2328:
2322:
2318:
2314:
2310:
2305:
2301:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2291:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2267:
2263:
2259:
2254:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2244:
2240:
2236:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2220:
2216:
2212:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2197:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2168:
2164:
2156:
2154:
2152:
2148:
2142:
2138:
2132:
2128:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2102:
2098:
2094:
2090:
2086:
2083:
2077:
2071:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2053:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2029:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2012:
2009:
2006:
2003:
1999:
1996:
1993:
1990:
1987:
1982:Monmouthshire
1981:
1979:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1966:
1961:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1943:
1941:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1926:
1925:postal county
1919:
1915:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1901:
1897:
1892:
1889:
1886:
1885:
1882:
1876:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1861:Roger 8 Roger
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1786:Roger 8 Roger
1782:
1778:
1773:
1770:
1769:
1764:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1712:
1708:
1703:
1702:
1697:
1696:
1693:
1688:
1685:
1677:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1666:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1655:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1644:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1631:
1628:
1624:
1616:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1603:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1558:Kitchen Knife
1555:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1521:Kitchen Knife
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1486:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1463:
1456:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1352:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1276:
1274:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1212:Kitchen Knife
1209:
1208:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1198:Scrivener-uki
1195:
1194:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1184:Kitchen Knife
1181:
1180:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1156:Scrivener-uki
1153:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1133:
1132:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1116:Kitchen Knife
1113:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1095:Scrivener-uki
1092:
1088:
1085:. There also
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1063:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1049:Kitchen Knife
1046:
1045:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1005:Kitchen Knife
998:
996:
995:
991:
987:
986:Scrivener-uki
983:
964:
960:
956:
948:
947:
946:
942:
938:
937:Scrivener-uki
934:
930:
929:
928:
924:
920:
916:
915:
914:
910:
906:
905:Scrivener-uki
902:
900:
897:
893:
892:
891:
887:
883:
878:
877:
876:
872:
868:
867:Scrivener-uki
863:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
845:
844:
843:
842:
838:
834:
833:Scrivener-uki
830:
826:
822:
810:
806:
802:
798:
795:
792:
789:
785:
780:
779:
778:
774:
770:
769:Scrivener-uki
766:
762:
758:
754:
753:
752:
748:
744:
739:
738:
737:
736:
732:
728:
727:Scrivener-uki
724:
720:
716:
712:
711:ancient Egypt
708:
704:
700:
692:
681:
680:
676:
675:
671:
670:
666:
665:
664:
661:
658:
655:
652:
649:
646:
643:
640:
637:
633:
631:
627:
616:
614:
613:
597:
593:
587:
584:
583:
580:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
538:
530:
519:
517:
514:
510:
509:
505:
499:
496:
493:
489:
476:
472:
466:
463:
462:
459:
442:
438:
434:
433:
425:
414:
412:
409:
405:
404:
400:
394:
391:
388:
384:
379:
375:
369:
361:
360:
350:
346:
341:
340:
333:
328:
320:
318:
317:
313:
310:
309:March 9, 2006
306:
305:
301:
299:
298:
294:
291:
287:
286:
282:
279:
276:
275:
270:
266:
262:
258:
255:
251:
250:
246:
242:
238:
235:
232:
228:
227:
208:
207:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
3061:
3029:
3019:
2996:
2986:
2955:
2897:
2874:
2864:
2842:
2825:
2796:
2790:
2766:
2744:
2741:
2716:source check
2695:
2689:
2686:
2659:
2656:
2634:
2631:
2606:source check
2585:
2579:
2576:
2489:
2486:
2450:Welbecklincs
2446:
2441:
2438:
2434:
2431:
2427:
2423:
2388:Welbecklincs
2385:
2332:
2303:
2300:Warwickshire
2186:
2182:
2178:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2160:
2137:Welbecklincs
2133:
2129:
2125:
2095:
2091:
2087:
2084:
2081:
2078:Nomenclature
2035:
2013:
2010:
2007:
2004:
2000:
1997:
1994:
1991:
1988:
1985:
1969:Welbecklincs
1964:
1962:
1947:
1929:
1922:
1917:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1893:
1890:
1887:
1883:
1880:
1807:from them??
1780:
1776:
1767:
1766:
1760:80.229.185.6
1722:80.229.185.6
1716:— Preceding
1710:
1706:
1704:
1700:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1690:
1686:
1683:
1675:
1664:
1653:
1642:
1634:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1622:
1614:
1606:
1605:
1600:
1534:
1490:
1400:
1280:
1257:— Preceding
1253:
1110:— Preceding
1070:
1035:217.34.41.57
1002:
979:
860:Ah yes, the
817:
703:ancient Rome
696:
663:
656:
650:
644:
638:
624:
618:
591:
567:UK geography
535:
498:UK geography
470:
430:
374:WikiProjects
357:
331:
314:
295:
290:July 6, 2004
236:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
2953:Warofdreams
2823:Warofdreams
2794:Warofdreams
2469:83.99.11.74
2253:MOS:LEADALT
2211:MOS:LEADALT
2145:—Preceding
1777:and only if
1467:template.
1141:Westmorland
829:Weasel word
558:to do lists
148:free images
31:not a forum
3132:Categories
3069:this image
2753:Report bug
2643:Report bug
2313:JimmyGuano
2262:JimmyGuano
2215:JimmyGuano
2179:"a county"
2062:John2o2o2o
2017:John2o2o2o
1707:explicitly
1576:since 2003
1462:movenotice
1137:Cumberland
1033:from work.
626:To-do list
542:user-group
2736:this tool
2729:this tool
2626:this tool
2619:this tool
2163:synthesis
1989:I quote:
1031:DavidFRAS
801:Lozleader
554:resources
362:is rated
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
3079:of it. —
2809:Ghmyrtle
2742:Cheers.—
2632:Cheers.—
2371:Argovian
2336:Argovian
2278:Somerset
2239:Ghmyrtle
2187:"county"
2113:Ghmyrtle
2097:Markd999
2044:Ghmyrtle
1836:Ghmyrtle
1756:Ghmyrtle
1738:Ghmyrtle
1718:unsigned
1588:Ghmyrtle
1539:Ghmyrtle
1505:Ghmyrtle
1469:Ghmyrtle
1426:Ghmyrtle
1384:Ghmyrtle
1356:Ghmyrtle
1341:Ghmyrtle
1303:Ghmyrtle
1259:unsigned
1124:contribs
1112:unsigned
1071:historic
955:Ghmyrtle
743:Ghmyrtle
697:We have
302:Promoted
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
3064:History
2894:Regions
2666:my edit
2496:my edit
2309:WP:NPOV
2286:Mhockey
2276:Surely
2147:undated
1758:the IP
1354:that.
862:GM gang
654:refresh
642:history
594:on the
473:on the
446:England
437:England
393:England
364:B-class
321:Demoted
280:Process
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
3073:folios
2356:Tmol42
1900:County
1210:Why?--
709:, and
370:scale.
283:Result
126:Google
3115:Bazza
2927:Bazza
2769:Inops
2191:Owain
821:Earth
648:watch
351:This
239:is a
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
3119:talk
3085:talk
3032:Dank
3024:and
3007:talk
2971:talk
2957:talk
2931:talk
2908:talk
2885:talk
2852:talk
2827:talk
2813:talk
2798:talk
2778:talk
2763:Lead
2473:talk
2454:talk
2410:talk
2392:talk
2375:talk
2360:talk
2340:talk
2317:talk
2304:have
2290:talk
2282:Avon
2266:talk
2243:talk
2231:Avon
2219:talk
2196:talk
2141:talk
2117:talk
2101:talk
2066:talk
2048:talk
2021:talk
1973:talk
1965:Scir
1955:talk
1935:talk
1865:talk
1840:talk
1813:talk
1790:talk
1742:talk
1726:talk
1711:have
1592:talk
1562:talk
1543:talk
1525:talk
1509:talk
1501:here
1473:talk
1455:here
1444:talk
1440:MRSC
1430:talk
1415:talk
1411:MRSC
1388:talk
1374:talk
1370:MRSC
1360:talk
1345:talk
1329:talk
1325:MRSC
1307:talk
1291:talk
1287:MRSC
1267:talk
1231:talk
1216:talk
1202:talk
1188:talk
1174:talk
1160:talk
1143:and
1120:talk
1099:talk
1089:and
1065:The
1053:talk
1039:talk
1023:day.
1009:talk
990:talk
959:talk
941:talk
923:talk
919:Nev1
909:talk
894:The
886:talk
882:Nev1
871:talk
852:talk
848:Nev1
837:talk
805:talk
773:talk
747:talk
731:talk
715:Bold
636:edit
628:for
540:, a
277:Date
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
3037:Jae
3001:. —
2879:. —
2710:RfC
2680:to
2600:RfC
2570:to
2560:to
2550:to
2540:to
2530:to
2520:to
2510:to
2143:)
2034:.
1896:not
1582:.
1537:.
1503:.
1499:is
721:to
586:Mid
465:Mid
176:TWL
3134::
3121:)
3087:)
3009:)
2973:)
2933:)
2910:)
2887:)
2854:)
2815:)
2780:)
2723:.
2718:}}
2714:{{
2613:.
2608:}}
2604:{{
2475:)
2456:)
2412:)
2394:)
2377:)
2362:)
2342:)
2319:)
2292:)
2268:)
2245:)
2233:,
2221:)
2213:.
2119:)
2103:)
2068:)
2050:)
2023:)
1975:)
1957:)
1937:)
1867:)
1842:)
1815:)
1792:)
1744:)
1728:)
1594:)
1564:)
1545:)
1527:)
1511:)
1475:)
1465:}}
1459:{{
1446:)
1432:)
1417:)
1390:)
1376:)
1362:)
1347:)
1331:)
1323:.
1309:)
1293:)
1269:)
1233:)
1218:)
1204:)
1190:)
1176:)
1162:)
1139:,
1126:)
1122:•
1101:)
1093:.
1055:)
1041:)
1011:)
992:)
984:.
961:)
943:)
925:)
911:)
888:)
873:)
854:)
839:)
807:)
775:)
763:,
759:,
749:)
733:)
705:,
701:,
556:,
201:,
197:,
193:,
156:)
54:;
3117:(
3094:@
3083:(
3005:(
2969:(
2929:(
2906:(
2883:(
2850:(
2811:(
2776:(
2767:@
2755:)
2751:(
2738:.
2731:.
2645:)
2641:(
2628:.
2621:.
2471:(
2452:(
2408:(
2390:(
2373:(
2358:(
2338:(
2315:(
2288:(
2264:(
2241:(
2217:(
2198:)
2194:(
2139:(
2115:(
2099:(
2064:(
2046:(
2019:(
1971:(
1953:(
1933:(
1863:(
1838:(
1811:(
1788:(
1740:(
1724:(
1590:(
1560:(
1541:(
1523:(
1507:(
1471:(
1442:(
1428:(
1413:(
1386:(
1372:(
1358:(
1343:(
1327:(
1305:(
1289:(
1265:(
1229:(
1214:(
1200:(
1186:(
1172:(
1158:(
1118:(
1097:(
1051:(
1037:(
1007:(
988:(
957:(
939:(
921:(
907:(
884:(
869:(
850:(
835:(
803:(
771:(
745:(
729:(
657:·
651:·
645:·
639:·
632::
598:.
564:.
477:.
376::
203:4
199:3
195:2
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
