Talk:Middlesex/Archive 1

Archive 1

Origin of the name

From the article:

"The name means middle Saxons and refers to the reputed ethnic origin of its inhabitants."

I think this comment requires clarification. It could refer to Middlesex or Middle Saxony in Germany, and the use of the phrase "ethnic origin" appears to mean the latter. I've always understood it to be the former on the basis that Essex is to the east, Wessex to the west and Sussex to the south. As I don't know what the answer is, I'll leave it for someone else to sort out. The Angel of Islington 03:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Status of Middlesex

The article seems to assume that Middlesex was only ever a political entity - this is highly disputed by supporters of the historic counties who will assert that the county does still exist because of things like the Cricket Club and the University (which, in the form of Middlesex Polytechnic, only got that name in 1973, after the administrative county was wound up). And many people in Middlesex still feel they are in Middlesex.

On the issue of the Post Office having Middlesex in the address - the current text rather implies that the Post Office will just deliver mail that happens to have the name Middlesex on it. The Post Office does actually recognise the existance of an area called Middlesex - mail addresses and boundaries have rarely followed local government boundaries (look at the London postal district for the obvious example). The Post Office still acknowledges the existance of Middlesex (although it doesn't follow the historic county or the post 1888 boundaries) right down to its formal list of areas - take a look at this BBC News story [1]. -- User:Timrollpickering

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places). The approach taken here is supported by the vast majority of wikipedia users; the only objections coming from 2 users who are obsessed otherwise. Certainly we could add more mention of the people who believe that Middlesex still exists as a county, rather than a placename. Morwen 11:11, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

How does that look? Morwen 11:22, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Looks good. I've changed the word "district" to "area" as district implies a more localised area, and also added a note on the term "Middlesex Bank" for a bank of the Thames. Timrollpickering 13:06, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

As someone just coming to this issue, I find the whole "We've decided, no if's and's or but's" and everyone else is "obsessed" unhelpful and not consistent with NPOV, especially when the articles being amended actually conflict with advice given on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), e.g. "Middlesex was a county" is specifically given as an example of what not to write. Keep it NPOV, and mention both "traditional/historic county" and "administrative county" as existing entities. Andrew Yong 14:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If Middlesex has ceased to exist, please give a reference to the legal instrument that dissolved it! LoopZilla 11:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't it already explain that in the article? G-Man 20:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I have no objection to historical or traditional counties being mentioned in Wikipedia articles, we should certainly abide by the policies and conventions. If these are faulty in some way they need to be changed through discussion (and if necessary a vote), but just ignoring them goes against the whole spirit of Wikipedia.

Some of the arguments offered above are flimsy. Legal instruments are not always needed for something to fall out of use, changes in customary use play a large part; and asserting that a county exists because a cricket club or university uses the name is unwise. It certainly contributes some evidence, but there are many businesses, clubs, and a museum using the name 'Corinium', does this mean that 'Corinium' is still the correct name for the modern town of Cirencester? No, it takes much more than limited use of a name to show that a town or a county exists in 2005.

Wikipedia needs an article on Middlesex, of course. But it really should describe the county's history including the facts that it is no longer widely used for official government purposes, in local government, or in modern maps (eg Ordnance Survey). The article can also include the fact that the name is still used by certain businesses and organisations. (Whoops, forgot to sign earlier - sorry) Chris Jefferies ??:??, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The real problem is the definition of the term "county" which is not universal in the UK. Some use it to mean the area administered by the county council, some mean the relevant line on the postal address, some mean the traditional area name and so forth. I'm not sure Wikipedia is truly consistent - some parts of the UK are treated as though the counties exist, despite the move to unitary authorities, others are much more fragmented. I suspect this may need a rethink. Timrollpickering 12:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, that's absolutely right. The problem is made much worse because, although a policy on county names was agreed, not everyone follows it. If we want to be consistent (and we all should want that) we must follow policy or, as I mentioned, improve it and then follow it.

Unfortunately, despite long debates and even an RfC, we have still failed to agree. In a nutshell, existing policy is that we should have a single article for each county, and that article should cover all aspects including the county's history, boundary changes, geography etc. I believe this would work well if we all followed it, the articles should explain the confusing situation and the fact that people hold differing views. As there's no administrative county of Middlesex it should be slightly easier than some of the others. Chris Jefferies 18:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Middlesex doesnt exist,its now the metroplitan county of London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.253.165 (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to move

I've made a proposal to move this to Middlesex - based on the number of links meant for this article that are actually pointing at Middlesex (see Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Middlesex ), it's historical precedence and the precedence of choosing the English county for the articles at Essex, Sussex, Norfolk etc.. Jooler

The discussion for this page move may be found at Talk:Middlesex/page move. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 19:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cumberland

As far as I can see, only two of the Traditional counties of England are not at an undisambiguated [[county name]] - Middlesex, England and Cumberland, England. Is the argument for main article disambiguation of Cumberland any better than it is for Middlesex? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would say that Cumberland, too should be at the undisambiguated location. john k 19:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Former postal county?

The article STILL says Middlesex is a former postal county. There is nothing former about it; I LIVE in Middlesex, and it does very much still exist. Not just in people's minds (subjectively true), but in postal reality (objectively true). Someone please edit this. 22nd November 2005 BryanAJParry

It is still a traditional county — that is indisputable. It does still exist, but ALL postal counties of the United Kingdom are "former postal counties" because the Royal Mail (who invented them) have stopped using them. Owain 13:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that 'former postal county' is the language now used by Royal Mail to refer to them. As they invented them they are perfectly within their rights to rename them. MRSC 16:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The point is the implication is that letters sent to such-and-such a place, Middlesex, will not get where they are going. This is not true. 82.44.212.6 23:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Bryan

Postal counties were always a mess and I'm glad that we're shot of them! I have however clarified that Middlesex can be used on Middlesex addresses with the Royal Mail's blessing. Owain (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

So, if Middlesex does not exist, when (and by which legal instrument) was it abolished? Gordo 17:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It was abolished in 1965 when it became part of the metroploitan county of London. Forget what is written on your envelope, that means nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.253.165 (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

>>>IF<<< you put the postcode on the envelope, and >>>IF<<< the machine can read it, then you don't need the county. But mail from abroad [e.g. mail order goods] frequently doesn't have the postcode, and then the "old" county is a vital disambiguation for towns such as Ashford or Ruislip, and will be written in by Royal Mail staff if missing. Also if you include the "optional" county name then your mail will "optionally" be sorted/delivered faster by the Royal Mail staff. I write from experience on both points. 90.192.72.57 (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Piracy

At the time, piracy and smuggling were, formally speaking, committed "on the high seas in the county of Middlesex".)

Did Middlesex have some legal particularity then?

Yes. It was the place where the King's Bench happened to be sitting for much of the time. Hence the use of the Bill of Middlesex and so on. Strictly, the King's Bench was moveable court and the Common Pleas fixed. Though, by 1300, they both sat in the same room on a regular basis. Francis Davey 13:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Parishes

Anyone object to adding parishes of middlesex? Is very usefull information to family historians. NSWelshman 15:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The "division into hundreds" section is mostly based on parishes of the ancient county. Here is the full list: [2] MRSC 19:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Postal county map

Could we have a map of the postal county area? I am having difficulty visualising based on other maps how it could have been two disconnected units - this would imply that the London postal district touched the Buckinghamshire or Hertfordshire postal county at some point? Morwen - Talk 17:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The N postal area does touch postal Hertfordshire at Barnet. So we have a small exclave (EN 1-3) which is Enfield, then EN 4-6 which is Barnet and Potters Bar, Herts, separating Enfield from the HA area.Lozleader 17:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that kind of makes sense. I was somehow expecting the parts to be of roughly equal size. Morwen - Talk 17:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, note "Potters Bar, Herts" - according to the article in The Times I quoted on former postal counties, this was changed from Middlesex to Herts in 1965 (but Staines and Sunbury weren't changed to Surrey). Morwen - Talk 17:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This map may help: [3] MRSC 18:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Middlesex is still a postal county as it appears in postal addresses such as EN4. The reason for this is as EN4 is within the Greater London Boundaries but isn't a London Post code. Therefore it needs a county name and thus uses Middlesex as its historic county. Same goes for the parts of London belonging in post code to Essex, Surrey, Kent and Herts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.161.14 (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well its a former postal county, which haven't really been used by Royal Mail since 1996. Once you put the postcode on the address, you can write Enfield, Middlesex, Enfield, Greater London, or indeed Enfield, West Lothian if you like. The section of the article explains it quite well: for instance you can now add Middlesex to addresses within the London postal district if you wish. Basically, addresses anywhere in the UK no longer need counties, but you can add any county you like. The post office will ignore it, anyway.

But you are quite right, prior to 1996, Middlesex would have formed part of the address. Now it's an optional extra. Lozleader 11:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is 100% correct. The people who still write Middlesex on their post are hanging on to a belief that they dont live in London which is rubbish. You are quite right that you dont need a county on a letter these days and these people know this however it isnt just Middlesex where this happens, its all around London where the E/N/NW/SE/SW postcodes end. The Post Office should re-write the London postcodes to end this problem. Also if people are unsure if they live in London, ask them who their mayor is !!

You would be very surprised how many people in outer London boroughs are surprised to discover they can vote for Mayor of London! And most people (and some websites) don't know you don't need to put a county on the address - it's not that well publicised. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they would be well advised to examine their council tax bills 8^). It does always help to know who you're paying the money to. I really hope they don't get confused about which ambulance, fire, or police service they need to call out. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

County town

Does anyone have anything more than "London Brentford" for this? It would be good to add a citation as I have seen various claims as to the historic county town. MRSC 07:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, in 1831, according to Samuel Lewis's Topographical Dictionary of England...

• "the parliamentary elections for the county take place at New Brentford, it being the county town"
• The quarter-sessions house was on Clerkenwell Green
• The county assizes were held at the Old Bailey

Later on the county council was based in Westminster!

Lozleader 08:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh and the 1911 Brittania sys: "Brentford has been the county-town for elections since 1701".

Lozleader 08:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And here's another one:

The elections for the county of Middlesex are held at Brentford, for which reason it is considered as the county-town; but there is no town-hall or other public building.

From The Environs of London: volume 2: County of Middlesex (1795)[4]

And:

Despite Brentford's antiquity, there were no substantial grounds for the claim that it was the county town, first made in 1789: the county court had sometimes sat there, as in 1378 and 1608, and Middlesex's parliamentary elections took place there in the 18th and 19th centuries

A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 7 [5]

Lozleader 08:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on these I think I'll remove London for certain. I have seen Westminster and Clerkenwell cited as the county town (I forget where). Brentford is most often cited but it is also disputed. Perhaps the county town should be removed altogether for this one? Any thoughts? Or perhaps the various claims could be summarised in the article and the infobox could then read: "see text". MRSC 09:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just typing almost exactly that when I got an conflict with your edit! Yes, I think that's a good way to proceed. "No established county town -See Text?"Lozleader 09:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you write the text summarising the claims? I am not as familiar with them as I think you are. MRSC 09:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll put it on the todo quite soon list! Lozleader 10:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Middlesex Day

A "Middlesex Show" has been held at the Hillingdon show ground in recent years, which was originally supposed to commemorate Middlesex Day. The event has been spoiled by bad weather in the past, and it was put on hold for a while, but was held this year in June (2008). I'll try and get some more info - but can't promise anything! Gorebridge (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to find out if Middlesex Day is in fact celebrated and by whom? The only hits in Google are all derived from this article, and there is no sign in the online newspaper databases. Anybody know anything? Lozleader 11:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I have just found this [6] unattributed piece on a cricket league's site. Although it is not dated, 1811 + 191 years makes 2006. However the regimental museum referred to at Bruce Castle closed in 1992, so I can't quite figure this out??? Oddly enough there is no mention of the day at [7] or [8] which seem to be approved by Russell Grant, who founded the Middlesex Family Foundation at Middlesex on May 16th 2006, Lozleader 11:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any reliable coverage other than the EDM, which is vague itself as to the significance. MRSC • Talk 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So should it be removed or just rewritten? Lozleader 10:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If I do a search on the ProQuest newspaper database for 'Middlesex Day' and ignore those including 'cricket' I get zero results. I get the feeling this was something informal decided by someone associated with the cricket team or some military group and the EDM was designed to try and gain wider appeal. I suppose we could go down to Brentford or Westminster Guidhall on 16 May and see if the bunting is out, then we will know if it is 'celebrated'. Seriously, it probably needs to be edited to say no more than is contained in the EDM as that is the only reliable source. MRSC • Talk 11:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had already done a similar search, and as you say all cricket! Lozleader 13:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Municipal boroughs

No boroughs until 1901. Was something preventing them being created before then? I feel like I remember reading something saying that (although it may be my imagination). 14:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good question. As can be seen here, there were a number of applications prior to 1901, and it took Ealing three attempts. There were also applications by Kensington and Westminster within the County of London prior to 1900. Lozleader (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

I'm sorry to say that this article needs some substantial improvment before it can pass GA.

• Lead definitely needs to be longer and more comprehensive. Y Done.

• Year ranges need to use 1889–1965 not simple hyphens like 1889-1965. Y Done.

• Short paragraphs of 1-2 sentences need to be expanded or integrated and merged into other paragraphs, the etymology section for example is very short. Same for the earldom section, market towns section and so forth. Y Done.

• In Wikipedai WP:MOS, AD is to be avoided and CE used instead. Y Done.

• Many unsourced paragraphs in the modern history section and also more one sentence paragraphs. Y Done.

• Articles should aim to be prosified rather than have dot points.Y Done.

• Latter part of the the coat of arms section is unsourced. Y Done.

• Dates are linked inconsistently. Y Done.

• The references are not formatted consistently and filled in fully. Y Done.

• It seems incomplete that you are only treating the area as an administrative district and treating it purely as a series of administrative rezonings and such. Usually articles about former countries and dynasties also describe what life was like in the said place. In this case, there is no kind of society type of information, which appears to be a problem.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. All these points are easy to deal with aside from the final one. The history of the area is so fundamentally linked to London that it is hard to separate the two. In early times the county was sparsely populated, so not much going on and in later years the story is effectively that of London, so would effectively replicate East End of London and other London-district articles. MRSC • Talk 18:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The sections entitled Settlement and economy and Population and development hopefully now plug this hole. MRSC • Talk 08:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have renominated the article. MRSC • Talk 17:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I support Common Era years in favour of the Anno Domini system, I must say that the Manual of Style makes no such preference, so Bananabucket is, in my opinion, mistaken in saying that the article ought to have CE years. Waltham, The Duke of 14:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Local government before 1894

I suppose the extra-metropolitan local government before the Local Government Act 1894 ought to be mentioned (apart form a mention of "existing sanitary districts" it is missing at the moment). Looking at the 1871 census returns, Youngs, Historical Directories and the Victoria County History this seems to be the list:

Name	Type	Local authority	Formed	Legislation
Acton	Local Government District	Local Board	1865	Local Government Act 1858
Chiswick	Improvement Commissioners District	Improvement Commissioners	1858	Chiswick Improvement Act 1858
Ealing	Local Government District	Local Board	1863, extended to entire parish 1873	Local Government Act 1858
Edmonton	Local Board District	Local Board of Health	1850	Public Health Act 1848
Enfield	Local Board District	Local Board of Health	1850	Public Health Act 1848
Hampton Wick	Local Government District	Local Board	1863	Local Government Act 1858
Harrow-on-the-Hill	Local Board District	Local Board of Health	1850	Public Health Act 1848
Hornsey	Local Government District	Local Board	1867	Local Government Act 1858
South Hornsey	Local Government District	Local Board	1863	Local Government Act 1858
Teddington	Local Government District	Local Board	1867	Local Government Act 1858
Tottenham	Local Board District	Local Board of Health	1850 (Temporary Board of Health 1831 - 1832)	Public Health Act 1848
Twickenham	Local Government District	Local Board	1868	Local Government Act 1858
Uxbridge	Local Board District	Local Board of Health	1849	Public Health Act 1848
Friern Barnet	Local Government District	Local Board	1883	Local Government Act 1858
Brentford	Local Government District	Local Board	1874	Local Government Act 1858
Finchley	Local Government District	Local Board	1878	Local Government Act 1858
Hanwell	Local Government District	Local Board	1885	Local Government Act 1858
Hendon	Local Government District	Local Board	1879	Local Government Act 1858
Heston and Isleworth	Local Government District	Local Board	1875	Local Government Act 1858
Norwood	Local Government District	Local Board	1891	Local Government Act 1858
Southgate	Local Government District	Local Board	1881 (split off from Edmonton)	Local Government Act 1858
Staines	Local Government District	Local Board	1872	Local Government Act 1858
Willesden	Local Government District	Local Board	1874	Local Government Act 1858
Wood Green	Local Government District	Local Board	1888 (split off from Tottenham)	Local Government Act 1858

If arranged by year, they would give an idea of the increasing urbansation of the county. Apparently, Uxbridge was the first local board established under the 1848 Act.

Not sure where it would fit into the existing structure of the article.....

Lozleader (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree this would complete the picture. I've rejigged the sections a bit as the order was not entirely chronological. I suggest adding a section titled something like "Extra-metropolitan area" after the current "Expansion of the metropolis" section and possibly merged with the "Districts" section. MRSC • Talk 18:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This could now be added to History of local government districts in Middlesex (1894—1965) which could then be renamed History of local government districts in Middlesex. MRSC • Talk 17:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Right you are... time permitting...18:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review: On hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Far, far too many lists. See Kent for an example of a workaround for this.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I don't think the Creation of Greater London is necessary, and it clogs up the article. However, I may be wrong.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Once the lists are taken care of, the article will pass, easily. On hold for now. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and comments. I've made changes that hopefully deal with this. MRSC • Talk 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly what needed to be done. Congratulations, this is now a good article! Well done! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection because of repeated disruption by anon editors

I've semi-protected the article because of repeated acts of vandalism by anonymous editors today: I had hoped that blocking an IP user would have stopped it, but the same vandalism was then carried out from a different anon IP address. I hope this doesn't cause too many problems to anyone wanting to edit the article (autoconfirmed users can still edit it.)  DDStretch  (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sport

Middlesex still exists. Most London residents north of the Thames are regarded as residents of Middlesex for sporting purposes. Counties compete with one another in many sports, and some sports organize closed competitions for the residents of a single country. Not just cricket. For example, the Middlesex LTA organizes a annual tennis tournament at the Queens Club for the residents of Middlesex only (Middlesex Tennis). --RichardVeryard (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)