text:
Talk:Romford/Archive 1

American towns
Is there any evidence that the American towns of Rumford (in Rhode Island and Maine) were named after Romford? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.212.81.20 (talk • contribs).

 * Romford has been known as 'Rumford' in the past. A 1610 map lists it as Rumford. It's entirely possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.23.255.111 (talk • contribs).

East London?
Last time I checked, the postcode for Romford didn't start with an E. Everyone, including official channels consider Romford to be Essex. The Greater London idea is just a tax grab. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.23.255.111 (talk • contribs).

 * Municipal Borough of Romford explains its transfer to Greater London in 1965. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MRSC (talk • contribs).

 * Official channels consider Romford to be Greater London - i.e. you get to vote for Ken Livingstone. [or not!] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovetrot (talk • contribs).

 * Romford of course is in Greater London, but many of it's residents mistakenly believe themselves to still be part of Essex, simply because of their postcode. On the other hand, the majority of people from Dagenham understand their G.London status despite their Essex postcode.  Why this is I'm not sure.  Nearly every time I hear Romford mentioned on TV they call it Essex. Undisputed1972 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I always find if it a story related to crime then it's in East London and if it's something "good" then it's in Essex! --Richhoncho 19:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

 * "Nearly every time I hear Romford mentioned on TV they call it Essex." - Thats because TV news people do their homework, and know that Romford is in Essex! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.175.77 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 20 March 2008

 * Romford IS ESSEX, it just is covered by London Boroughs. Its the same story with Ilford with is in Essex but controlled by London Boroughs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spymo (talk • contribs) 19:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

 * In Essex, just covered by London Boroughs? Please explain further.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.17.189 (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you lived in the area you would understand. Some places like Upminster, Romford, Ilford etc. are now controlled by London Boroughs but boundaries where never changed to make these places officially part of 'Greater London', hence these areas having the address of Essex not London and also having Essex postcodes and not London ones i.e. 'E17' they have postcodes like 'RM' & 'IG'. Furthermore, they have Essex telephone numbers, Romford has never had a London '020' dialling code! (82.2.175.77 (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

 * Postal boundaries are not the same as geo-political boundaries. A postal address is just a routing instruction. Also postal counties do not form part of postal addresses anymore. Your assertion that boundaries where never changed to make these places officially part of 'Greater London' is not evidenced by the London Government Act 1963 or published works describing it. Finally, telephone codes are even less tied to geographic areas than postal addresses. The E postcode area goes beyond Greater London at Sewardstone and 020 goes way into Essex and Surrey. MRSC • Talk 11:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying. An address identifies were you are and from, Romford does not have "London" in its address, please check it out, locate Romford Station or a shop in Romford they will have "Essex" in there address line! I agree there is a grey area in Essex where '020' is used and even where the Metropolitan Police are in place instead of Essex Constabulary (although its not as big an area as you make out, only a few towns), but this does not take away from the fact that just because an area is covered by a council that is classed as a "London Borough" it does not make the area London. There is similar confusion in the Essex town of Ilford, where though the town is very much Essex it is controlled by a London Borough. Simple homework people! Its also helps if people that live in or near the area comment!

 * Here is an example: Redden Court School, Cotswold Road, Harold Wood, Romford, Essex RM3 0TS (ESSEX)
 * Leyton Sixth Form College, Essex Road, Leyton, London, E10 6EQ (LONDON)

 * However, a lot of business in Romford write the address without the Essex and just use Romford, as you would use London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.175.77 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and the decision was taken at Naming conventions (places) not to use postal geography as a primary reference frame. The addresses you gave are incorrect and should read, according to Royal Mail as follows:

 * Redden Court School, Cotswold Road, ROMFORD, RM3 0TS
 * Leyton Sixth Form College, Essex Road, LONDON, E10 6EQ

The part in capitals is known as a post town, these do not correspond to the boundaries of actual towns and they only number around 1,500. London is one of the better examples of this as it only corresponds to about 40% of Greater London. Another example is the Birmingham post town which does not include all of Birmingham district but does include parts of Solihull, Sandwell and even extends beyond the West Midlands county into North Warwickshire. Which brings me on to the counties you included. These are postal counties and these have been obselete since 1996. Relying on postal counties means that Bath must be considered part of Avon instead of Somerset. Also the localities (Leyton, Harold Wood) are not part of the address. The examples of Leyton and Romford are interesting as they were both municipal boroughs of Essex until 1965 (see Municipal Borough of Leyton and Municipal Borough of Romford). What you are asking us to accept is that the Royal Mail decides what is part of a place (in this case London) and what is not. This is not within their remit and according to published sources their function is to devise a delivery system that is as efficient as possible. Read post town and postal county, these articles should give some indication of how divorced postal geography is from geo-political divisions. MRSC • Talk 16:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally the keen-eyed will have noted from London Postal Area that the original London postal district of 1856 included Romford (and presumably places closer to the centre of London like Ilford, Dagenham, etc).. Pterre (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of misunderstanding her, some of which beggars belief. The situation is really quite simple. Romford is in the London Borough of Havering, and is thus in Greater London. The term 'London' as it is used today simply refers Greater London and the City of London (side note: I'm not sure whether the City of London is actually included in Greater London, because the City and Greater London are regarded as counties for various purposes, but in any case the City is certainly part of the London region of England, which is one of nine official regions of England), so to say that a place is 'in London' means that it is anywhere within one of the 32 London boroughs or the City of London - therefore, contrary to what some people have been saying, Romford is 'in London.' Several people have been getting confused over Romford's association with Essex. Romford was indeed within Essex until 1965, which was when Greater London was established, and thus within control of Essex County Council. Since 1965, the Greater London Council and later the Greater London Authority have been responsible for Romford; and the Metropolitan Police, London Ambulance etc. now operate in Romford. When a person from Romford says that they are from Essex, I wouldn't think for a moment that they are actually unaware that Romford falls within the boundaries of Greater London - to be ignorant of this fact would require someone to wander around for 43 years with their head up their ass! Rather, when a person from Romford says they are from Essex, it is more through a sense of personal identity - for example, a girl from Romford may grow up saying she is an 'Essex girl,' and thus still thinks of herself in this way. Another example is when somebody says they are from Middlesex - what many people don't realise is that almost all of Middlesex has been swallowed up by London, in fact it actually contained the City of London on its southern boundary. So, a person saying they are from Middlesex might very well be from London, but it does no harm whatsoever to tell this white lie, as they are from a place that was originally in Middlesex. Yet another example is the town of Sutton, London. Walk around the town and you will see the name 'Surrey' in the names of shops - but so what? - everyone knows it is London. A final, less related example is based around where I live, in the North East of England, near Middlesbrough. We used to be in the county of Cleveland, but Cleveland has since been abolished. On almost every letter I receive, it has 'Cleveland' written in the address, but that's no problem; I still get the letter. Writing Cleveland in the address isn't correct, but it's a habit which shows no sign of dying here - everyone here knows that Cleveland does not formally exist anymore (or is very ignorant if they do not), but many people would still identify themselves as coming from Cleveland (even though we are a unitary authority within the boundaries of North Yorkshire) as, after all, the land which was formally defined as Cleveland still exists! As for the whole 'London does not appear in a Romford address' business, this is because London is not Romford's post town, i.e. Romford is not within the London postal district, which also means Romford does not have a London postcode, which somebody has also pointed out. Do these points, as well as the lack of a London dialling code, mean that Romford isn't in London? Of course not! The London postal district, as well as the telephone dialling code area, are these days almost arbitrary. For example, no sane person would claim that Wembley of all places is not in London, but Wembley's post town is not London, and it has a Harrow postcode. These 'problems' are simply because redefining the postal district would be, according to the Royal Mail, too expensive, though some politicans have expressed a wish that the London postal district be extended to cover the whole of Greater London, so that every place in Greater London would have a London postcode and London as the post town, though it hardly matters really, does it? From this, though, it is easy to see that a postal town doesn't have to be a genuine town. For example, London AS A POST TOWN is NOT a town in the sense that London is usually used, i.e. as Greater London, and anybody who doesn't understand why Greater London is neither a town nor a city simply isn't thinking hard enough. In fact, when people call 'London' a city (or even a town), or say that London is the biggest city in the UK, they are simply wrong. When you say London, you usually mean Greater London, which as I have said is not a town or city in any sense, it's more a collection of towns and villages, or, if you like, a county. By and large, it's a metropolitan area. If you were to mean the City of London when using the expression 'London,' of its size you could only correctly say that it is the second smallest city in the UK, for it is tiny. By the way, I have friends from Bromley and Teddington, which are of course in London, but are outside the London postal boundaries, and I have seen them write 'Teddington, London' etc. on letters home. That's no big deal. Oh, and as somebody else said, Royal Mail likes you to write the post town in capitals, though of course you really don't have to! Ultimately, you must understand that the issues some people have with Romford are in no way unique to Romford, as Greater London, when defined in 1965, took places from Kent and Hertfordshire, as well the three already mentioned (Middlesex, Essex and Surrey). Indeed, MANY places in London don't have a London postcode, but this doesn't make them less a part of London, and indeed most if not all of the 'newly incorporated' places in London (by newly, I mean in 1965) still have a 'London feel' to them. In fact, the term 'Greater London' has been in use for a lot longer than such an area has been 'officially defined.' 217.42.230.195 (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Glossing over your belief that no-one has been walking round Romford for 43 years with their head up their arse ;^), I was with you until I got to "when people call 'London' a city (or even a town), or say that London is the biggest city in the UK, they are simply wrong". By that token no large settlement anywhere in the world that has grown over a significant amount of time (are there any others?) could be called a city. I am sure most people are sophisticated enough to distinguish between the various meanings of 'city' and 'London' just as they understand the difference between the engineer who hoovers the inside of the photocopier and the one who designs nuclear power stations. In my (oldish) OED the primary definition of 'city' is 'large town', and the primary definition of 'town' is 'considerable collection of dwellings etc, esp. one not created a city'. I think that covers (Greater) London which ever way you want to play it. What else would you want to be understood by 'largest city in the UK' unless trying to catch someone out in the Tuesday night quiz at the Pedants' Arms? That (Greater) London has only a token unifying local authority (covering what many would regard as an unrealistically small area - smaller for example than Greater Manchester) is mainly a consequence of the challenge its power has historically posed to central government - from the City Corporation to the LCC to the GLC. Its many conflicting operational boundaries (postal codes, phone codes, police, local government etc) influence perceptions but do not mean (Greater) London is not a city. In most respects London is a much more coherent whole than most (all?) other UK conurbations. It only really breaks down into a collection of towns beyond the artificial constraint of the Green Belt - but of course even here most of the large towns owe their size to London - as overspill, first wave New towns, due to closeness to Heathrow (M4 Corridor), the Port, commuting, etc.

 * Perceptions of where places 'are' are very subjective and shift through time. According to their birth certificates, my paternal grandparents came from Clerkenwell, Middlesex. I'm pretty sure they would have said they lived in the middle of the largest city in the Empire! Conversely my mother, born in Crouch End during WW1, always claimed she lived in Middlesex, though the postal address was London N when she was born and N8 before she could read. Her perception probably reflected the fact that her grandmother's family had lived there since the 1860s, when it was still a rural hamlet. When I was born it was still technically in Middlesex (at primary school we still ate our lumpy custard with spoons stamped MCC), but I've never thought of it as anywhere other than north London. Arguably, loyalty to a 'Middx' identity within London is less than to Essex (or to Kent, Surrey or Herts) because Middx has not in living memory had a recognisable county town distinct from London. I'm interested in your example of Cleveland - does this continued usage apply equally to people brought up there before its creation?

 * Back to the plot, WP is supposed to be a reliable source, not a collection of subjective opinions. It is fine to refer to Romford's heritage as an Essex town, but today it is a London suburb, my Romford-born wife's ironic self-identification as an Essex Girl notwithstanding..    Pterre (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the reply :)

 * Anyway, it still holds true that Greater London is not officially a city, if for no other reason than because declaring it as such would mean that there would be two cities, Westminster and the City of London, within it, which is a little weird. Anyway, it has no relevance in this discussion, because GL in real life terms is a city, and to say that it isn't is to be pedantic.

 * As regards to Cleveland, I think many people are quite confused over the whole issue. There are doubtless many people who still think it exists, or didn't know it was a county anyway, or don't give a shit, etc.  Causing the confusion is that Middlesbrough is in a self-named unitary authority borough, within the bondaries of North Yorkshire (as are the unitary authority boroughs of Redcar and Cleveland, and partly Stockton-on-Tees), but our police and fire services are called Cleveland Police and Cleveland Fire, respectively.  The fact that Cleveland also lives on in the name Redcar and Cleveland is probably also confusing.  Furthermore, Redcar and Cleveland and Middlesbrough are both officially in the North East, whereas the rest of Yorkshire is in the Yorkshire and Humber region.  Junior cricketers play county cricket for Cleveland, also.  Many people here would say that Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland isn't 'proper Yorkshire.'  They have a point; I don't think many people really know what's going on with the county issue here, so people here in general don't care about counties (though Cleveland remains on most of my letters).

 * You say that Greater Manchester is larger than Greater London. You're actually wrong there, though there sizes are similar.  Also, you seem to be suggesting that the Corporation evolved into GLA.  Not really the case - they exist separately, and do quite different things.  86.145.222.89 (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are of course right that GM is smaller than GL - I was probably thinking of the combined area of GM with neighbouring Merseyside - jointly they have less than 4 million people but cover a considerably larger area than Greater London which even within its restricted boundary has nearer 8M. No, of course I was not suggesting the city corporation morphed into the GLA - just alluding to the tension that has existed between 'London' and 'Westminster' since long before the unemployment figures on County Hall and Fares Fair, and long before the days of Herbert Morrison. But I think we've probably outstayed our welcome here. Pterre (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

43 years with head up their arse? Well more like 20 odd years for some of the people that I know from Romford. Most of the confusion stems from the media. Nearly every TV report or newspaper article refers to Romford as Essex. The fact that Upminster resident Lorne Spicer, the irritating BBC presenter of 'Car Booty' talks about Romford in Essex just confirms their belief! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.20.42 (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly true that Romford is in London and that is an encyclopaedic fact. It is also true that a significant proportion of residents (not just the old but many of the young I meet and talk to) consider themselves to be from Essex - this is a cultural association of some kind that probably ought to be referenced in the article (BTW - the same is true for Ilford and all places between).DaveK@BTC (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Famous Residents
I believe that Steve Davis was born in Plumstead, he moved to Romford after becoming a pro. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickthecoder (talk • contribs).

 * I thought he was a South Londoner too, but couldn't find confirmation to remove him from the list. --Richhoncho 00:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * This section is totally unreferenced (as these sections often are). I think all the entries need to cite a source or be removed. MRSC 06:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * All the names are sourced within WP with the exception of Davis & Col. Blood. I'm not sure the "unreferenced" is going a tad too far, better to bemove Davis - it's a common mistake. Otherwise each entry needs to be independently sourced and that would get far too cumbersome. --Richhoncho 13:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Other Wikipedia articles cannot be cited as sources (although the sources used in those articles could be). Fear of cumbersomeness isn't good enough reason to not provide sources. MRSC 15:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

History expansion - brewery
This article needs a section on the brewery that is now closed down, it is pretty important aspect of the history. MRSC • Talk 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Crime
Maybe the one element that makes Romford truly what it is is not mentioned anywhere in the article. The shining night-life of South Street (along with it's long string of killings, stabbings, criminal damage, sexual harrassment and drunken violence) is surely more than necessary to accurately portray the place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.34.9 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 June 2007

 * Havering is currently reported as having the lowest crime levels in London.   MRSC • Talk 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

 * This is true, and Essex has even lower crime rates, inflamatory and biased comments (often attributed to "unsigned") have no place on this encyclopaedic website, please bear that in mind before recklessly editing any articles. On a personal note, the list of criminal behaviour you provided could relate to any town in the UK!! Angryafghan (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Crime gets added in a lot of places, its obviously a common concern. I think it can be included, but with two important caveats, (1) it must be referenced to a reliable source and (2) the comparative figures (for London, at least) should be included - where it comes in a 'crime table'. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Urban area
I've removed some text about the urban area and wanted to explain why. The ONS consider Romford to form part of the London/Havering urban area and this is contiguous with Chadwell Heath (London/Barking & Dagenham). Romford itself does not form an urban area or conurbation alone, as it part of London/Havering. Looking on a map, Romford is linked to Chadwell Heath via the A118 and Crow lane with continuous development (unless you count Westlands playing fields as countryside, which the ONS do not). In any case, I have changed it to Rush Green as this is actually the nearest settlement that way and will hopefully end any confusion. MRSC (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good article criteria
I want to get this article to good article status. Here are the criteria—  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

I would appreciate suggestions to achieve this and pointing out where the article currently falls short. It is much easier to do this with more than one set of eyes. MRSC (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 one external links on Romford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604095909/http://www.london.gov.uk/archive/mayor/strategies/sds/docs/bpg-nighttime-economy.pdf to http://www.london.gov.uk/archive/mayor/strategies/sds/docs/bpg-nighttime-economy.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214003002/http://www.privateline.com:80/TelephoneHistory3A/london1916big.gif to http://www.privateline.com/TelephoneHistory3A/london1916big.gif
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608211546/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2921 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2921
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608211628/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6039 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6039
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608211648/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6042 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6042
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608211714/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6043 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6043
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608211721/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6046 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6046
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608211733/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6048 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6048
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608211742/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6041 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6041
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608193222/http://www.havering.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=18286&p=0 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=18286&p=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608213113/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=8760 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=8760
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608212657/http://www.havering.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=2372&p=0 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=2372&p=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:UKCITIES
Noticed the article passed GAC lately. Just wondered if it was possible for some of the content to be cosmetically rejigged so that it conforms with the layout recommended at WP:UKCITIES? --Jza84 | Talk  17:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Compliance with any recommended layout made by WP:UKCities, is not a precondition for awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I know. But I think it still makes good sense to adopt a standardised layout, if just for the benefit of our readers. --Jza84 | Talk  23:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I've updated. The differences were minor so it caused no problems. MRSC (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Former market town?
I think there is a distinct problem with this article in that every so often it states that Romford was once a market town, now I know for a fact in living here that Romford is still a Market town and holds a Royal Charter saying so - I wonder why this fact seems to be omitted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.169.55 (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Romford is an historic market town that has been absorbed by the expansion of London to become a large suburb. The article reflects that and the sources cited. There is no suggestion that it no longer has a market. MRSC (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Romford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608211323/http://www.havering.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4743&p=0 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4743&p=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123061143/http://havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=7989 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=7989

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Romford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927021237/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=2402 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=2402
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001043708/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10199463&c_id=10001043 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10199463&c_id=10001043
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211082200/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10166913&c_id=10001043 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10166913&c_id=10001043
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605032340/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10073303&c_id=10001043 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10073303&c_id=10001043
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100531064623/http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/images/maps-diagrams/jpg/map-4c-1.jpg to http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/images/maps-diagrams/jpg/map-4c-1.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040622133028/http://www.romford.org/ to http://www.romford.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Romford is in London
The confusion needs to be resolved. Boundaries have changed. I've edited the article to reflect reality, but I'm making a note here lest someone decides to revert my edits without discussion: I don't want an edit war.--Leon (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 * +1 - It seems a few places in Romford are going by "Essex" .... Is there actual proof it's in London? ... – Davey 2010 Talk 19:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

 * This strongly implies that Romford is in London, whilst this, if followed through the links, also references Romford being part of London. It's in the London Borough of Havering.--Leon (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And people are still edit warring years later. daft. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 15:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Roxy the dog agreed - mad to think this has been continued for 3 years!. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 * FOR Info : I have requested page protection. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 15:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Ceremonial county versus London borough

 * It would be interesting to know if the folk insisting Romford Essex is in London were actually born in Romford or have even ever lived in Romford for more than a few days in a BnB. I know myself and the MP for Romford were born and raised in Romford in the same hospital 55 and 53 years ago. Andrew Rosindell the member of parliament for Romford since 2001 born and raised and still lives in Romford should know as well if not better than anyone where Romford is. He has this to say on the subject. “Romford is and always has been a part of the historic English County of Essex. It is only for local government purposes, that Havering is categorised as a ‘London Borough’, following the creation of ‘Greater London’ as a region in the 1960’s.” So becoming a London Borough did not mean that Romford and Havering stopped being a part of Essex.Essex is an historic county with its own identity, a distinct culture, combined with social, sporting and business networks. Mr Rosindell continued: “We cheer for the Essex County Cricket team. our local regiment is the Essex Regiment who have been awarded the freedom of Havering and our Church of England parishes fall within the diocese of Chelmsford. We are defined by geography and not by local government structures which change regularly. A change in the administration of local services in the 1960’s did not end our town’s connection with Essex.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickGriff (talk • contribs) 18:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Romford is in the London Borough of Havering. The London Boroughs are what make up London, they are London. So yes, Romford is in London. Romford is in the ceremonial county of Greater London, so yes, Romford is in Greater London. It has been argued that the terms London and Greater London can be used interchangeably. The fact that the Mayor of London has authority over Greater London gives this argument some backing. Romford is in the London Region. These facts seem to confirm that Romford is in London. Stupid Rules (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Romford was in Essex until 1965. This seems to be certain. In 1965 Romford was transferred from Essex to London by an Act of Parliament which must have had Royal Assent. Romford is now in the ceremonial county of Greater London, but not in the ceremonial county of Essex. Romford is administered by the London Borough of Havering and above that, the Greater London Authority and the London Mayor. So, Romford is not in the ceremonial county of Essex and neither is it administered by any Essex authority. The suggestion that Romford is in the 'historic' county of Essex seems to be conjecture. Since Romford was in Essex, then saying Romford WAS in the historic county of Essex seems to have more backing. Since another term for historic county is former county, it seems that these counties only exist as a historical point of reference. Regarding the past, as in history, they may have use but to use them in preference to the actual working county boundaries of today seems illogical and bound to cause confusion (which of course it has). It is a myth that correct Romford postal addresses contain the word Essex. By checking any Romford postal address on the Royal Mail address and postcode finder website it can quickly be established that the word Essex doesn't feature in the finished article of any Romford address. In short, it appears that there is a serious lack of evidence to back the suggestion that Romford is in Essex, whereas there seems to be plenty of evidence to back the suggestion that Romford is in London. Stupid Rules (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * MickGriff from Romford Essex here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickGriff (talk • contribs) 23:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)  It would seem that the NHS is of the opinion that Romford is in Essex.Notice also that Romford in Essex does not have a London phone code. Maybe some people that are not from Romford in Essex but insist Romford is in London are being a little economical with the truth. Did anyone manage to read the quote I posted from  Andrew Rosindell MP for Romford Essex making a definitive statement on how and why Romford is still in Essex. Please note Queens is a new modern hospital and even the road its on is quite new so there is no confusion over it being a historic address with a historic phone code. Queen's Hospital 01708 435000 Rom Valley Way, Romford, Essex, RM7 0AG — https://www.nhs.uk/Services/hospitals/Overview/DefaultView.aspx?id=627
 * Unable to reply on the previous page for unknown reason. According to the NHS website, Havering is in London, which puts Romford in London. As I've said, CORRECT postal addresses can be found on the Royal Mail website. What a person chooses to write as an address is up to them. As long as the door number and postcode is correct the letter/parcel should arrive. For part of the 19th Century Romford was postally London E. That didn't make Romford part of Essex then and it doesn't make Sewardstone E4 part of London now. Being in a London Borough is what makes a place London. The London Boroughs are what make up London, they are London. Chigwell has an 020 phone code but isn't in London. Dagenham also has an 020 code and is in London. Romford has an 01708 phone code. It could be argued that 01708 (the part in Havering anyway) is a London phone code because it's in London, the same as it could be argued that RM postcodes in London Boroughs are London postcodes because they're in London (tho not under the London post town). Sudbury in Suffolk has an CO postcode but isn't in Colchester or Essex. So, the CO postcode that covers Sudbury is a Suffolk postcode. Andrew Rosindell also believes that Stratford is STILL in Essex, but offers no solid evidence to back this up. Both Romford and Stratford WERE in Essex until 1965 when they were transferred to London by an Act of Parliament. Now, both Romford and Stratford are in the ceremonial county of Greater London, not Essex. Historic counties are also known as former counties, as in no longer in existence. It's interesting that people who believe that former counties are still relevant can't agree on where their borders are. In truth, they have no borders because they no longer exist. Stupid Rules (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I did he said. Southend on Sea is not in Essex it said. Leeds is not in Yorkshire it said. Dover is not in Kent it said. Norwich is not in Norfolk it said. No they are in London she said. Strange economy with the truth I said. Andrew Rosindell MP said Stratford is in Essex she said. Is that a fact he said when did he say this or is it a invention. She said no more and sat down for a nice cup of tea and a chocolate biscuit but the biscuit was soft and stale so she threw it to a passing spider that looked a little famished. The spider lived in the shed at the end of her garden in Edinburgh a short walk from the castle. Its in London she said look in the Royal Mail Postcode and Address Finder. Billy the spider said I think you are a little confused so she squashed Billy with a big fat book that she uses as a door stop. The complete works by Sir Francis Bacon and William Shakespeare. William was born in London she said.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickGriff (talk • contribs) 01:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You said Romford postal addresses contained the word Essex. They don't, and the address and postcode finder website proves this. It is the fact that Romford is in a London Borough that makes it London, not the postal address. Same goes for anywhere else in London. If you look at the House Of Commons Hansard, Local Government Reform: Greater London discussion of 17th October 2018 you will see that in his 4th comment, Andrew Rosindell says that Stratford is in Essex. He says that Stratford is in the traditional county of Essex whilst offering no evidence to back up the existence of such a county. It is clear that Romford is in London and not in Essex. You're unable to disprove this, and your descent into childish ramblings adds to the weight of the suggestion that you don't know what you're talking about. Romford London, fact. Stupid Rules (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Go to Hansard and you will see Andrew was using the Olympic Games in Stratford to make a point that everything is being centralised in London and and everywhere else is being neglected and for the record when Andrew said "Stratford is traditionally part of Essex" he was absolutely correct.Note the word traditionally. An example I give to you in an attempt to clear your mind is the London Olympic bicycle events that were in Essex about 35 miles east of Stratford. As for your insistence that the Royal Mail postcode finder is the definitive authority on whether places are in London or Essex my humorous little bit that you rabidly describe as childish rambling far from adding anything to show I know nothing actually prove your post code finder suggestion is total bunkum and indeed deception. As you dont like the government NHS saying Romford is in Essex I will present to you another official government document via a official Westminster government website. You will find that every school local to Romford is in Essex. I take a bow and await your call for a encore with a cup of tea and a fresh chocolate biscuit.  https://www.get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Establishments/Search?searchtype=ByLocalAuthority&d=24&startIndex=50&Count=190  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickGriff (talk • contribs) 13:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Traditionally in Essex. What does that mean? Nothing. So no, he's not correct, he's just made something up which has no backing. I've clearly said that being in a London Borough is what makes a place in London, not the postal address. It's you that has stated that a postal address proves where a place is; you're wrong, have been proved wrong, and are now trying to accuse me of doing what you're still attempting to do. No school in a London Borough is in Essex regardless of the address they may have chosen to use. Romford London, fact. You're unable to prove otherwise. Everything you say on the subject hits the buffers. Stupid Rules (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The local member of parliament says Romford is in Essex,I think he would know. Andrew was backed by parliament in the Hansard section that you mentioned with your deception he was also backed by Jake Berry the member of parliament for Rossendale and Darwen for almost 20 years. The NHS says Romford is in Essex the government say Romford is in Essex and parliament in session says Romford is in Essex. Never mind them fools what do they know about Romford especially that Rosindell fellow that was born raised and still lives in Romford. Lets all look down to the sky and reflect on a world where black is now white by popular opinion and referendums only count if they give the required result otherwise everyone is a fool that needs to vote a different way. Just a little recap. Parliament in session says Romford is in Essex. The MP for Romford says Romford is in Essex.He is backed by other MPs. The NHS say Romford is in Essex in official government documents. Then last but not least the government says Romford is in Essex in official government documents. This conclusively proves beyond even the slightest doubt that Romford is in Essex. What do they know. Stupid fools.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickGriff (talk • contribs) 08:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The interesting thing about Romford of course is that it has spent more of its history outside of Essex than in it. From 1465 to 1888 Havering was an independent liberty with its own county administration. In 1892 it was amalgamated with the county of Essex, only to be removed again in 1965. The other thing that is interesting is that Romford was a special post town, so the postal service has always suggested that a county should be absent from postal addresses. MRSC (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The MP for Romford doesn't know what he's talking about. He has no proof to back his statement, neither do you. The NHS say Romford's in London. The Government say Romford's in London. It was an Act of Parliament than transferred Romford from Essex to London. You say those institutions say Romford is in Essex because someone has written incorrect addresses on some of their websites. But the Royal Mail address and postcode finder website shows that no correct Romford address has the word Essex in it. You of course have rejected that evidence because it doesn't tally with your agenda. So all you've got is the opinion of an MP, that's it. And his opinion has no factual basis. In fact, the facts clearly show he's wrong, which of course means you are too. You've got nothing new or compelling to add to this discussion, you just keep on with the same nonsense. You're wrong and i believe you know you're wrong. Romford's in London. Romford's not in Essex. This has been the case since 1965, same with Stratford. I expect you to reply with the same regurgitated nonsense that you've continued to use, so unless you've got something new and logical to offer to this discussion i won't be replying, I've simply got better things to do than argue with someone who knows they're wrong but likes to argue for the sake of it. Parting shot: As regards the argument, i won! (Your ego won't like that will it, but regardless of the unfunny nonsense you spew back, i won). Stupid Rules (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Distances in lead
I made an edit in the lead section adding Romford's location distances to Ilford (4.6 miles) and Brentwood (6.1 miles), which was then reverted by User:Davey2010. Surely there's no issue with having this sort of thing, considering plenty of such towns articles have about 2 or 3 "distances from" in the lead, e.g. Chelmsford, Southampton, Ashford, Kent. --MetrolandNW (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

 * My apologies MetrolandNW I thought your edit would've been disputed however looking at East London you would indeed appear to be correct, My assumption was that there was going to be an edit war over whether it's in London or east London but yeah as I said you appear to be correct with your edits, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 13:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm aware of the social conflict between whether Romford is London or Essex but my edits were just distances, nothing to do with Romford's status. I will add the two desinations back (and while I'm at it, section out the lead because it's a tad too big!). Thanks again. --MetrolandNW (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

These distances are unusual for London articles, only the CHX distances are typically given. Brentwood and Ilford are arbitrary locations. When other encyclopedias give distances it is usually to relevant places like the post town of the locality or some centre of administration. MRSC (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 * I crossed the river and chanced on this Romford article. The editor's 'distance from' additions to many other articles are also discussed on her talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Romford is in London not Essex, and no, historic counties don't exist.
Romford is in London because it's in a London Borough. All London Boroughs are in the ceremonial county of Greater London which means they can't be in any other ceremonial county. So no, Romford ain't in Essex. Historic counties aka former counties (according to Wikipedia) don't exist. They're historic like Rome's occupation of parts of Britain. They are a historical reference, not a current geographic one. They are of history, as in the past, as in no longer the case. A place today cannot be in a historic county because historic counties no longer exist. Riteinit (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Romford is in London, yes. Romford is also in Essex. The creation of Greater London was for administrative purposes only, with the intent of creating a new council (Greater London Council) that would govern more of London collectively rather than just the inner part of the conurbation. No counties were changed or abolished - only local government areas were changed. London consists of parts of Essex, Kent, Middlesex, Surrey and Hertfordshire. Every part of Greater London is in one of these counties. As for your point on Wikipedia also referring to historic counties as "former counties", it also refers to them "simply as counties". The counties have these names (eg "traditional counties", "historic counties", "ancient counties") to convey the difference between them and recently-created administrative areas. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Counties were originally created as administrative jurisdictions. They have changed over the centuries. Yes, those former counties that are now in London were changed or abolished (in the case of Middlesex) in 1965 by Act of Parliament. Former counties do not exist in the present. You don't believe what you're saying coz you're very selective about which parts of London you put your unsubstantiated historic county nonsense on. Where's Stratford's historic county, or Tottenham's? Nah, you don't believe this historic twoddle either, you're just tryna say places you think should be in these other counties are via the back door. Riteinit (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Stratford is in Essex, just as much as Romford is. Tottenham is in Middlesex. Has that answered your question? I edited the Stratford article last week, by the way. That edit remained in place until you went through my account, I assume in light of the sockpuppetry accusations against you, and reverted it. Have you read the acts of Parliament in question? The counties of England themselves have not been changed. Wikipedia's UK Geography project states that the historic county can be mentioned in the lead. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Riteinit. Why not idle away some time with you on this warm tranquil evening I ask myself? 1/ Former does not mean no longer in existance. 2/ What and where precisely in the 1963 London govt act does it say that any of the surrounding historic counties were abolished or changed? And, what does it say about the 1889 county of London? Compare the way they are both treated, the historic counties and the administrative county. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Remember Wikipedia is meant to be a factual site. Hence why your edits to multiple locations and changing their locations should not be allowed to stand. Stratford, Romford, Tottenham, etc. are all in Greater London. As i explained above, they full within every definition of a current live county we have - and as such there is no debate required. Also @Roger, Historic counties no longer apply or are recognised in any setting. Given Romford is in Greater London both Administratively, and ceremonially - referring to the historic will only lead to confusion among readers. The Historic is just that - history. It is a footnote of a time now gone, and not the main geographical location of the settlement. Garfie489 (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

No dice historic counties flunkies. Former does mean no longer a going concern. Why haven't you put the historic county of every place in England? Why the obsession with applying it to certain parts of London? Disingenuous behaviour. It's simply a ploy to say these places are in a former place. It won't wash. You think people won't notice the reverts have gone from simply changing a places location to a different county to now saying it's in a historic county also. Basildon is in Essex. Why doesn't its page say it's also in the historic county of Essex... Coz it already says it's in the place you want it to be. Disingenuous. Riteinit (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's try this approach: the default place where UK settlements are, used in wikipedia, is their local govt area. Simple right? Think again! The names of all the many area descriptions are often the same, hence confusion and edit wars. When you rant on about Bexleyheath being in GL, that is correct because the default area is the local govt area (debatable if we should say Bexley, GL). That is why GL is the first area mentioned in the lead. The HC (a different type of area) can be mentioned if it has a significant influence on the settlement, which for Bexleyheath Kent does have. What's your problem? GL and Kent are different entities. It's like you saying Lewisham is in London so it cannot be in England?? You are getting muddled because the previous pre 1965 local govt area was the Municipal Borough of Bexley which was part of the administrative county of kent (not the historic county). So all that has happened is that Bexley local govt has shifted its view from outwards into Kent to inwards towards London. Consequently, the word London is more frequently linked with Bexley/heath and to Kent less so. (The postal town being Dartford has slowed the seperation from Kent in the public mind but that is another debate) None of this has changed the area of the HC of Kent. When we in WP say Basildon is in Essex we mean the admin area called Essex. What common usage by the public means is not clear but it is likely to mean the HC, whose name, Essex, is the same - meaning there is no tangible reason to make a fuss. All these endless debates relate to areas where local govt boundaries have changed. Logically I agree we should say here that 'Basildon is in the administrative county of Essex and the historic county of Essex', but we do not for obvious reasons. But, by not doing that we are not clear enough and that cements a confused line of thinking that causes problems when we get to settlements near a border, like Bexleyheath, where the HC and the LG area diverge. If you want to discuss this further, better to go to the UK geography project talk page. Alternatively you could continue making disruptive edits everywhere and abusing other editors - your choice! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)...While writing this Riteinit was indef blocked. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Legal status of counties
(This is a copy of statement above by user:PlatinumClipper96) Romford is in London, yes. Romford is also in Essex. The creation of Greater London was for administrative purposes only, with the intent of creating a new council (Greater London Council) that would govern more of London collectively rather than just the inner part of the conurbation. No counties were changed or abolished - only local government areas were changed. London consists of parts of Essex, Kent, Middlesex, Surrey and Hertfordshire. Every part of Greater London is in one of these counties. As for your point on Wikipedia also referring to historic counties as "former counties", it also refers to them "simply as counties". The counties have these names (eg "traditional counties", "historic counties", "ancient counties") to convey the difference between them and recently-created administrative areas. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(Later replies to PC96 moved here to avoid clutter - no meaning or intent has changed)):This is simply wrong. We have Administrative counties, and Ceremonial counties - though for London these are exactly the same. A county is formed by the grouping of multiple boroughs/districts/etc (ill just call them boroughs for simplicity) together to form the local county. Hence a county is the layer above boroughs in terms of administration. Greater London is made up of the 32 boroughs, whilst boroughs such as Brentwood are in neighbouring counties. Thurrock is a borough where it is ceremonially but not administratively in Essex - but again that doesnt apply to London as all boroughs are both administratively and ceremonially within the same county. The text which refers to this change in law exclusively refers to it as a county borough, and makes no mention of any location remaining within a separate county. We also know from other pages that Greater London has its own lord lieutenant, making it a ceremonial county with the same boundaries as the administrative county, and so no other types of counties remain to which Romford could belong to other than historical ones (ie, no longer apply). :::Garfie489 (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Garfie489, The text which refers to this change in law exclusively refers to it as a county borough, and makes no mention of any location remaining within a separate county. What do you mean by this? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Roger 8 Roger to put simply, the text states that the regions set out become part of the administrative county of Greater London. The use of county borough is confusing a grant giving its different meaning in most other cases. We know that ceremonially Greater London also exists as a county due to the definition of how those are formed. There is no definition of an existing county which defines anywhere in Greater London to be in another county, other than "it used to be this way". Administration has moved on, Ceremonial duties have moved on, and as such to state these locations are anywhere other than these definitions of counties is both confusing to a reader and unsubstantiated. We can state current evidence to show Greater London is the official county in multiple definitions - however that is not the case for historic counties. It is a footnote that historically these places were elsewhere, but it is not currently the case. You are right, the text makes no mention of these locations remaining in a separate county - because they never did, that has not been provisioned for. Thus all Greater London locations are in the county of Greater London. Garfie489 (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So moving on, is it best we list these Romford and other similar locations by their ceremonial county as the first and foremost information? Administrative counties are what affects the daily lives of residents themselves, but ceremonial counties are the ones most people know the locations by (for example most view Thurrock or Southend to be in Essex). Its also usually noted that these locations are in London boroughs - which form the definition of an administrative county, so to mention them within a ceremonial county adds additional information which can be both substantiated and does not add any confusion over location.

 * Ie. Romford is a large town in east London, situated in the London Borough of Havering, part of the ceremonial county of Greater London.
 * ^ This would be clear, unambiguous, substantiated, and relevant - Garfie489 (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you seen ] this], which is the current guideline situation about counties. How does your suggestion differ? If There is no definition of an existing county which defines anywhere in Greater London to be in another county this is true, what sort of definition do you mean? And why is that definition important? Seeing as Southend and Thurrock is a county of its own, are people who live there and think they are in the ceremonial county of Essex, ignorant? Thank you for your attempted clarifying explanations on a subject that is prone to confusion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I honestly dont understand what you are arguing for. It feels like we are agreeing to the same thing so it just confuses me. Thurrock and Southend are in the Ceremonial county of Essex, just not the Administrative county. Also what i am arguing is that the historic counties are irrelevant for the first line of the article. To state Romford was historically in Essex as the introductory line would be like arguing France was historically Gaul - this makes sense if it were a recent event, but this happened generations ago Garfie489 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I too am a little unsure of your position, but I will try to clarify now. AFAIK, because primary legal divisions of the UK are the ceremonial counties as defined by the Lieutenancies Act 1997, and that is, I think, the position taken by us here by using those counties as the default areas. That seems to be what you think should happen too. The problem is that this approach leads to innumerable exceptions and adaptations which causes a complete muddle and no uniformity between articles. A major problem in simplifying matters is, as you point out, defining what words mean. The word county can mean different things to different people depending on context to the speaker/writer. I therefore take issue with your approach that appears to take rigid position on where a place is. Further, I take issue with your claim that historic counties no longer exist because, I think you are saying, they are not defined in law. I agree that the now catch-phrase "X is historically in Y county" is wrong - I think it is nonsense for different reasons as well. So, it seems you are trying to agree with WP's guidelines, that you may not be aware of, but have come across the complete shambles that exists within UK place definitions. BTW, Thurrock and southend is defined as a county be the Lieutenancies Act, as in my link, which sort of complicates matters yet again if we are using that act as our default position of what is a county, meaning they are not in the county of Essex. I may have overlooked something in the act though so I can accept being proved wrong. I cannot see how any halfway decent encyclopaedia can leave mentin of Essex from an introduction to an article about Romford. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So with regards to the 1997 act, it states the administrative areas for which each ceremonial county exists. For Essex (Ceremonial) it states "Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock' - these are the administrative counties we have discussed. So there is no real confusion as to what a ceremonial county and administrative county is. There appears to be no issue that could happen between articles, because there is an exhaustive list of administrative areas within ceremonial counties listed within the act (read Schedule 1). I see no exceptions where it is unclear as to what ceremonial county an area may be in - Thurrock is clearly a part of the Essex ceremonial county, but not the administrative county (being a county borough/unitary authority). Surely as with all political borders, borders change - so i take issue with historical boundaries because boundaries change. Stating it used to be this way in 1800 as the first line of the article has no relevance today. Id be very odd if the first line of Prague introduced it as historically being in Czechoslovakia. If people want to know about the history of Essex in Romford, thats covered well enough in the history section (pretty early on in the page). But for people living in Romford, they pay London taxes, with a London Police force, London buses, vote in london elections, etc - thus its important to state it is in Greater London as that has the highest level of relevance to the local population. Romford is not a historical location, hence there is no need to mention its historical placement first and foremost within a wikipedia article. Romford was formerly in Essex, but that is something to mention at the end and not the beginning. Garfie489 (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The difference between Romford's location in the historic county of Essex and Prague's former location in Czechoslovakia is that Czechoslovakia was abolished. The traditional counties of England were not. The creation of new "county boundaries" or new "counties" has always been for administrative purposes. I am not disputing the fact Romford is in London. Romford certainly does have a London police force, London buses, etc. This was the case, however, long before the creation of "Greater London". Romford, along with much of south-west Essex in the metropolitan conurbation of London (known as metropolitan Essex), was considered part of London long before it was removed from administrative Essex. As for "London taxes" and "London elections", council tax is paid and elections are held for local government - which is precisely what "Greater London" was created to form in 1965 - a new local government body that would administer more of London rather than the limited part of the conurbation covered by the old London County Council. The government stated in 1974 that "the new county boundaries are for administrative areas and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change". Romford's location in the traditional county of Essex is certainly not "something to mention at the end and not the beginning", and I strongly oppose Garfie489's recent edits giving Essex only a brief mention. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ill avoid repeating myself, so keeping it short. However when making an introduction to a location it is important to state what is important to the people living there - and what is important to them is mostly administrative. If i were to introduce an actor, you state what movies they may be known for as an example, because that is important to know to know the person. Reading through the Governments statements, it basically reads that these historic counties will live on in peoples hearts... and thats about it. Now is it really important to know the local Rugby team plays in an Essex league because county level Rugby isnt bothered by administrative counties, probably not. Its an interesting note, but not the main thing someone needs to know about the place. It may have been relevant in 1970 when the change were fresh in peoples mind, but in 2021 we have kids whose Great-Grandparents may still have been in nappies when the change happened. It gets a brief mention, because it only has a brief impact on the local populations lives - it is possible some residents who migrated to the area are completely unaware of the historical connection. The sad thing is, many of those who had "Essex in their hearts" are no longer with us, and instead there is now a substantial population who would have looked towards London as their county - especially after 2012 when locals were part paying for the Olympics. An encyclopaedia is not about what is in peoples hearts, it is about the facts of what is truly relevant to an observer, and important to the locality in question - and thus, Essex gets a brief mention. To be honest, i dont see what is wrong with the 2/2/21 edit. It mentions the historic market town, introducing Romford as being administratively London. Seems to be no issues whatsoever really within that Garfie489 (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

You, Garfie489, appear to have touched on the nub of the problem regarding WPs treatment of historic counties. Basically, 'HCs were administrative areas and those areas have now changed as do all administrative areas over time', meaning, for example, Romford was in Essex but it is no longer. That is a narrow view commonly adopted on WP by people who like uniformity, distinctly defined demarkation lines and no ambiguity. I notice a lot of editors like this have computer and mathematical backgrounds, which is not surprising. However, it does not take account of other factors that have made HCs so integral in the mindset of British culture, many of them intangible. If we did take those factors into account we would have grey areas and uncertainty, words hated by certain types of people who prefer pushing buttons and filling in neat lists. That is why it is reckless not to mention Essex in a prominant position in the Romford article. A secondary concern is the not unimportant fact that the HCs have never been officially abolished. In fact the 1889 legislation made a conscious attempt not to do that, based on reading Hansard. (sorry, I don't have a link). Because they were not abolished, or even altered (new areas were created) it is hard to see how HC were changed into the administrative areas we have today. The only way to say that HCs were and are no longer is to use original research and simply assume that, which is what has happened in WP, and what has led to so many disputes and constant edit wars by a huge range of editors over time. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Garfie489 - please reply chronologically..if refering to an earlier post, refer to that editor to make it clear. Now, in reply, you do make some important points that IMO have merit. However, your argument is based heavily on original research. For example, when making an introduction to a location it is important to state what is important to the people living there - and what is important to them is mostly administrative. Says who? Are people uninterested about living in England because England does not create its own administration? What else is important to people living in Romford, in your opinion of course. And should an encyclopedia aim to tell the reader what the reader thinks is important, or what is factually correct, even if the reader is initially unaware of that (presumably why they read the encyclopedia, to improve their knowledge of the facts). Next, The sad thing is, many of those who had "Essex in their hearts" are no longer with us, and instead there is now a substantial population who would have looked towards London as their county - especially after 2012 when locals were part paying for the Olympics. - This is dripping with assumptions and guesswork. Next, An encyclopaedia is not about what is in peoples hearts, it is about the facts of what is truly relevant to an observer - correct, it is not about what is in people's heats, it is about verifiable detail. It is, as stated, not about what (someone thinks) is important in people's lives. Where I think your argument could be better used, is that the closer in to London you go, the weaker the connection with the historic county, which is reflected in RSSs, not what people living there might or might not be thinking. I recently was involved in a similar debate at Bexleyheath, where I said that there is a stronger case for mentioning Kent in the lead of Bexleyheath than, say, Lewisham, even though both are in the HC of Kent. That will be reflected in RSSs (as well as in the hears and minds of the residents). So, if you want to continue with your reasoning, please base it on secondary source verifiable facts, not assumption or wp:primary sources Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Apologies, i was replying directly given i was replied directly to. So first point on original research, i actually take the opposite viewpoint in that stating Essex to be important to the local population is the original research. Because theres no research to state why this is relevant to people today, and those editing to reflect that are basically saying "i think its still important to people" without really justifying why that is the case. From an administrative point of view, the reason why it is important to the local population is self evident - the administration is the one collecting the bins, organises the local police force, running public transportation, etc. The local administrative county (along with the borough council) represents the local Government, which due to their control over peoples lives makes them extremely important to peoples lives - that is self evident with no self research required. Meanwhile the articles on why a historic county may be important to the population basically extend no further than a few locals shouting "i can feel it in my bones", with no genuine research to state the majority of the population feel this way. What i am stating is factually correct, and not based upon the feelings of an observer - which is what would be the case by making Essex prominent as an introduction. The reason my statement on whats in their hearts is dripping with guesswork, is because the whole idea of historic counties being prominent is dripping with guesswork. Ill just quote one government source quickly to make this point
 * The 1974 arrangements are entirely administrative, and need not affect long-standing loyalties and affinities.” — Michael Portillo MP, 1990.
 * Basically, the changes dont force people to change loyalties - this is what i mean by whats in their hearts. If Scotland was annexed by England, the local population is unlikely to be happy - but from a factual point of view, itd still be England. Thats really all these politicians quotes acknowledge - that people may still go on thinking its elsewhere, whilst its really not. We see this regularly in disputed regions around the world. So this is why i kinda dont understand your angle, because i dont feel i am the one arguing for whats in peoples hearts - i am arguing for whats in the detail. Historic counties basically only exist in concept, and what keeps them alive is the people living in their borders who remember a time they used to be that county. To show they have any prominence whatsoever would require original research or citation, as otherwise we need to cite what can be verifiably shown to affect peoples lives - and thats local Government. I dont see how that is an original research conclusion to make, if you use Google for example to get county data - you get administrative counties, if you use OSS maps the same, basically every major source we could look into and ask "where are county borders" will show either administrative or (rarely) ceremonial borders. As stated, Historic counties live on in peoples hearts - and if you believe its the case the local population feel more importance to Essex than they do to Greater London, well thats going to need a citation. Because i feel the issue here is you need to look at the flip side and question why is Essex important today, and every argument that can be made is also true of Greater London (ie: It used to be Essex... well yeh, but it is currently Greater London). Garfie489 (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Romford/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Rotherhithe

cold war
"You'd have to go to Rotherhithe," is a passing reference from John LeCarre's The Spy Who Came in From the Cold.

Rotherhithe played an essential role as central location for minor espionage activities of the cold war.

Downtown
" Its central part, a redeveloped area on the site of the former docks, is often called "Downtown". " by whom?? i've lived in Rotherhithe for several years and never heard it called that. Sounds like a joke.
 * Downtown is in fact on the east side of the Rotherhithe peninsula near Surrey Docks City Farm. --Henrygb 22:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Map
The dot on the map looks to me as if it is the middle of the river between Deptford and the Isle of Dogs --Henrygb 08:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation transcription
The issue of broad transcriptions need not be rehashed here; the Wikipedia policy can be seen at WP:IPA for English. The name of this district contains an underlying pronunciation involving both and  and it should be shown that way. Different dialects have different pronunciations: see here. This is not worth an edit war. Stick to broad transcriptions, please. — ʀoyoтϵ 06:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to change this to just schwa, but now I'm not sure. If people in the UK say it without "r" then shouldn't it be written that way? I don't want to be in an edit war either but why can't we just let people write their own pronunciations if they are actually from there?71.163.128.115 (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are conventions to follow. Broad transcriptions are meant to be dialect-independent (in theory). In any case, I've tried to edit this twice and someone doesn't want me to. C'est la vie. — ʀoyoтϵ 03:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian government in exile
I have deleted the sentence in the Second World War section, that refers to the Norwegian government in exile being established in Rotherhithe. This was actually at at the Norwegian Legation at 10 Palace Green, Kensington. See Norway: the official site in the UK - News 27 October 2012 - Princess Astrid unveils blue plaque and British Government News & Press Releases - 25th October, 2005: Blue Plaque for King Haakon VII of Norway for references. Alansplodge (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Canada Water Master Plan
Given this imminent plan http://www.canadawatermasterplan.com/, that will make a big difference to the urban landscape, I wonder if we should add a section on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primal buddhist (talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - have added an additional section covering the masterplan, its components, and any opposition to it. Kahlesh366 (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rotherhithe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229100950/http://mayflowerhistory.com/History/voyage3.php to http://www.mayflowerhistory.com/History/voyage3.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829115620/http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Uploads/FILE_10435.pdf to http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Uploads/FILE_10435.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

King's Stairs Gardens
There is some difference between the information here and on the KSG article: and going by its status seems assured. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Rotherhithe


text:
Talk:Ruislip

Middle Class ?!
There are no "middle class" boroughs in London. You can live next door to a millionaire on one side and an unemployed person recieving benefits on your other side. This ancient antiquated notion of classes doesn't have any meaning in London. There are no middle class or upper class or even lower class boroughs. You should remove this. It doesn't add to the article in any way at all either. 90.255.182.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

So you mean to tell me Chelsea & Kensington is the same as Tower Hamlets? Kaleidoscopic God (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation not correct
I grew up in Ruislip Manor. Everyone I knew pronounced it "Rize-lip". Lorenzowood 16:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that - also grew up in Ruislip Manor but "rice-lip" is how I've always heard and said it. Keyoti (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly depends how posh you are. In South Ruislip, it was always rice-lip. Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Mills, the source cited in the article, gives both as current pronunciation. p.196: "The local pronunciation of Ruislip is either 'Rizelip' or 'Ryeslip'". MRSC (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Layout and sections
Please note WP:UKTOWNS for a guide to layout and sections. MRSC (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The encyclopaedia also has some general guidance for what not to include and which external links are good. The WP:UKTOWNS is the best guidance for writing about settlements. WikiProject London has guidance specifically for London articles and there is a manual of style for page formatting.

 * In respect of lists of shops, this is not included in even our most developed articles. A broad summary of the kinds of shops would normally be included in the economy section (WP:UKTOWNS has more details). MRSC (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the reply, i have looked at the economy section of the information that you supplied but it does no say what i added is acceptable or not - Can you give me a bit more of a clue of where the guidelines stating that the information i added is acceptable or not? Thanks msa1701 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

 * The economy section (which is the section that includes includes retail and shops) should be a summary. A note on major employment sectors. A note on major employers. - so this would include a very brief summary of the kind of employers and only identify each individually if they are significant. The industry and commerce (optional section) goes on to suggest A note on notable shopping centres (of regional or national notability). Clearly individual shops part of chains found on every high street are not notable, and even shopping centres are not automatically considered notable. Here is an example of a suburban locality with a well developed article, the relevant sections do not mention any shops by name, and only mention shopping centres in passing: Romford and Romford. MRSC (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation: Ruislip Woods
The section entitled Ruislip Woods is a copyright violation. Although it has been attributed to no attempt has been made to paraphrase it. It needs to be removed from the article or edited to comply with copyright violation policy. MRSC (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review - on hold pending improvements
I have begun a review of this article here, with expert assistance from User:Nikkimaria. As it stands, the article is well sourced, and well written, but could benefit from some tidying up. There is also a quite heavy focus on the history, which it would be good to address. The review is therefore on hold, allowing seven days for the article to be improved before we make a final decision. If you want to discuss aspects of the review, please make comment on the review page. Thanks! Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

South Ruislip
Does this article include South Ruislip? And it it does, it should probably state that explicitly. MRSC (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ruislip


text:
Talk:St John's Wood

Possible Picture
I live and study in this area, I might be able to take a picure to put on this page. For all those who know SJW, would a picture of the high street be appropriate? Onlyabititalian 18:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A picture of the high street would be a great idea.

I've put a picture on wikipedia which might be okay for the picture of the high street at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:StJohnsWoodHighStreet.JPG - Xakaxunknownx 12 November 2006

Yeah, I just came here from the Request for pix page with one too. I've added it anyway and taken it off the page. Tarquin Binary 10:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Err, is it correct that Sreenivas Rathinasabapathy should be listed as a dancer and an economist but not as a fashionista? Surely he's more famous for his clothes than anything else! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.214.169 (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on St John's Wood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110828161935/http://www.stjohnswood.org.uk/sjw/index.html to http://www.stjohnswood.org.uk/sjw/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110828161935/http://www.stjohnswood.org.uk/sjw/index.html to http://www.stjohnswood.org.uk/sjw/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No period?
Why is there no period after "St"?Dogru144 (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

 * In the United States they put a stop after all abbreviations, but in England it's only used to show that you've cut off a word at the end. So S(ain)t doesn't need one. David Arthur (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:St John's Wood


text:
Saeculum

A saeculum is a length of time roughly equal to the potential lifetime of a person or, equivalently, the complete renewal of a human population.

Background
Originally it meant the time from the moment that something happened (for example the founding of a city) until the point in time that all people who had lived at the first moment had died. At that point a new saeculum would start. According to legend, the gods had allotted a certain number of saecula to every people or civilization; the Etruscans, for example, had been given ten saecula.

By the 2nd century BC, Roman historians were using the saeculum to periodize their chronicles and track wars. At the time of the reign of emperor Augustus, the Romans decided that a saeculum was 110 years. In 17 BC, Caesar Augustus organized Ludi saeculares ("saecular games") for the first time to celebrate the "fifth saeculum of Rome". Augustus aimed to link the saeculum with imperial authority.

Emperors such as Claudius and Septimius Severus celebrated the passing of saecula with games at irregular intervals. In 248, Philip the Arab combined Ludi saeculares with the 1,000th anniversary of the founding of Rome. The new millennium that Rome entered was called the saeculum novum, a term that received a metaphysical connotation in Christianity, referring to the worldly age (hence "secular").

Roman emperors legitimised their political authority by referring to the saeculum in various media, linked to a golden age of imperial glory. In response, Christian writers began to define the saeculum as referring to 'this present world', as opposed to the expectation of eternal life in the 'world to come'. This results in the modern sense of 'secular' as 'belonging to the world and its affairs'.

The English word secular, an adjective meaning something happening once in an eon, is derived from the Latin saeculum. The descendants of Latin saeculum in the Romance languages generally mean "century" (i.e., 100 years): French siècle, Spanish siglo, Portuguese século, Italian secolo, etc.

title: Saeculum


text:
Talk:St Pancras, London

Major tidy up and adding of more facts
References are now sorted and more information is added, but there's so much more to St Pancras - any help gratefully received. Matt (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is St. Pancras?
What did St. Pancras do? Where is he/she from? Pistolpierre (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

St. Pancras or St Pancras?
Does anyone know (for sure) whether it should be 'St.' with a full stop, or 'St' without? I know this article seems to have it almost completely without, but is that technically correct? Especially as there are a couple of refernces in the artiucle with a full stop. 163.164.17.57 (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Modern practice in British English is that 'St' for 'Saint' has no full stop. Since it ends with the same letter as the full form (like 'Dr' for 'Doctor') it's strictly speaking a contraction (omitting letters in the middle) not an abbreviation (cutting short at the end), whereas 'Prof.' for 'Professor' IS an abbreviation and would traditionally have a full stop. Some older publications would have used 'St.' with a full stop, so if you quote them or their titles you need to follow the original text if it uses a full stop. I don't know what American practice is or what the official Wikipedia recommendation is! John O'London (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 * From Wikipedia manual of style MOS:STOPS "Contractions that do not contain an apostrophe almost always take a period in North American English, but the stop is optional in British English: Doctor can be abbreviated Dr. in American and Canadian English, but Dr. or Dr in British English. If in doubt, or if the dot-less usage could be confusing in the context, use the stop." In this case the owner of the facility, Network Rail, do no use a full stop in the name so we should follow its style. S a g a C i t y (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the MOS reference, Saga City. But I don't think it's entirely do-as-you-please 'optional' in British English. Having 'opted' for one version, you need to stick to it - or follow whatever the house style of the publication you're writing for requires. I shouldn't have said 'Modern practice in British English is...' but perhaps 'One popular version of modern British English usage, recommended by the Oxford University Press and followed by most British publishers, is...'. However, I can't agree that 'In this case the owner of the facility, Network Rail, do not use a full stop in the name so we should follow its style.' This article is about the district, not the railway station (where, yes, we should follow 'local' house style) - but why should we think that anyone in Network Rail's marketing department is an expert on English grammar or usage? (By the way, this subject has been discussed at length on the St Pancras station article talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Pancras_railway_station&oldid=239528813#Requested_move ). Other Wikipedia pages like 'St Pancras Old Church' and 'Metropolitan Borough of St Pancras' also omit the stop. On the other hand, the 'King's Cross St. Pancras tube station' article apparently follows local style in including the full stop! John O'London (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

 * PS - it gets worse. The Transport for London website http://www.tfl.gov.uk/gettingaround/stations/1000221.aspx makes it clear that stations like 'St. James's Park' DO have a full stop, while the Royal Parks website http://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/st-jamess-park insists it's 'St James's Park' WITHOUT a full stop. John O'London (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

 * https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=St.+Pancras%2CSt+Pancras&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CSt.%20Pancras%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2CSt%20Pancras%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BSt%20Pancras%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BST%20PANCRAS%3B%2Cc0 indicates the dot version used to predominate but was overtaken in the early 1960s but is making a come-back so it could be said to be neck and neck! S a g a C i t y (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Brilliant, Saga City! I'd never come across that site - I can play with it for hours! (But are they all books in 'British' English?) John O'London (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Suggest you try changing 'corpus' to 'British English' - then 'St Pancras' is still leading by a long way! John O'London (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Did so, and swapping between American and British is fascinating. Make me wonder why the Americans write about the place so often. S a g a C i t y (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Pancridge
Just adding a note to say that the area was referred to by the name "Pancridge" in the middle ages and early modern era. I have just come across this in Thomas Dekker "A Rod for Run-awayes" (1625) and am aware of other references. I put it here for interest as it is not referred to in the article. It is not as far as I know an "original name", but a local (in time and location) variation on the name of St Pancras which lasted for some time.212.159.59.41 (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks IP, I've added the relevant info, and a footnote abot its passionate parson :)  Cheers!  ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:St Pancras, London


text: Talk:Selsdon

title: Talk:Selsdon