# Talk:Berkhamsted

(from WP:RM)


### Berkhamstead → Berkhamsted
the article itself cites the latter as the correct spelling; however there is a REDIRECT at Berkhamsted with a non-trivial history so I can't do the move myself. --Phil | Talk 15:26, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm - I would do this now, but am a bit concerned that I should not breach the "four day" policy. In obvious cases like this, can I go ahead anyway? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Does seem to be the correct name, so yeah, go for it. One fly in the oinment: some of the content came from older versions of that redirect page, so you can't just delete the redirect; you'll have to swap the two pages, or merge the histories, or something. Noel 17:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Again, like José below, I would do it straight away, execpt I don't want to break anything... -- ALoan (Talk) 18:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This all seems OK now.--MichaelMaggs 11:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

More info than a stub, so re-rated as start. However, high importance not justified by criteria "...significant national impact/interest". Feeling generous, so re-rated as mid - "... of interest beyond local area". Folks at 137 (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a reference to the presence of De Gaulle.  Can someone tell us where he was based and perhaps provide some info about the Free French in B?  Maybe a picture of the HQ?Mikeo1938 (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a local history society in B?  Perhaps they have some info about the HQ and buildings of the Free French (?) Mikeo1938 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
According to this reference | here De Gaulle is understood to have lived secretly for around a year at a house call 'Rodinghead' which is on the road out of Berkhamsted close to the edge of the Ashridge Estate. Tmol42 (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
VMT for the reply.  I didn't realise it was only a private residence at B ... thought it was an HQ with lots of people.  So the HQ must have been just in Carlton House Gardens in London.  Perhaps I didn't read carefully enough but I got the impression from your site that the castle was used by CDG ... but it would already have been a ruin.  I'll tell you if I find out more.  Thanks again. Mikeo1938 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
For a chronology of CDG's movements in GB, see: http://www.livresdeguerre.net/forum/contribution.php?index=37426.
There is possible more significance to De Gaulle's house although it could be just a series of coincidences. The house or hunting lodge was in the grounds (all be it a secluded part) of Ashridge House which served as a military hospital during the war. From other sources he had a largish staff as his entourage were quite often at nearby Pottten End's Catholic Church. Meanwhile was it a coincidence that the Polish Government in Exile we based just outside Wingrave 10 miles away as the crow flies with Chequers is just 15 miles away? Tmol42 (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting ... but, as you say, it's probably a coincidence.  The main point must be their proximity to London. (On that latter tack, I wish Wiki Commons had some images of the Free French HQ at Carlton House Gardens).  I'm doing a piece about Sir Edward Louis Spears and his liaison with De Gaulle and the FF. Mikeo1938 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I came across a book this afternoon called "Mon Père en Images" by Philippe de Gaulle, the son of CDG. On pages 84-85 there are some VG shots of M + Mme DG at the house in B.  There's one of Mme DG in the kitchen, another of her in a drawing room.  The best shot is of them on some steps going down to the garden.  The book says that a photographer called Richard Temple persuaded them to have the pix taken ... they were against it because they were rather private people.  In the end, they agreed to a once-and-for-all domestic shoot.  The pix belong to Keystone France and so there's no way they could be made available on Wiki ... but perhaps the book might be of interest to your library or to the owners of the house ... (?)  It was published by Michel Lafon in 2006 and costs €37.91 Mikeo1938 (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just tidied up a formatting mess but I see that we have reverted to saying that de Gaulle's presence at Berkhamsted was for historical reasons.  I somehow doubt this; I believe he was simply allocated a place to stay by HMG.  But it would be necessary to look in a biography or other book to check.  In the meantime, I suggest it would be safer to say that he lived here in exile ... as given in a previous version.  To say that CDG used Berkhamsted as "a base", suggests that it was an HQ. This is not the case. Mikeo1938 (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree CDG was in residence for s short period of the war with his family and entourage but all the historical evidence points to it not being his HQ that was in Carlton House Terrace. Tmol42 (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I've seen several photographs of CdG at the house in Berkhamsted; the most recent (published in June 2010) is of CdG with his wife in the garden, also of the couple by the front door.  It seems that Churchill insisted on the photo-shoot in order to make de Gaulle more known to the British people.  However, CdG resented the whole business ("They are treating me like a bar of soap.")  He consented because it seemed to be his duty but hoped that the family would now be left in peace.  

Can someone get a shot of "Rodinghead" as it is today and upload the image to Wiki Commons? Mikeo1938 (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)  Can someone who knows the area provide the coordinates for "Rodinghead" on Google Earth? Mikeo1938 (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The arms displayed on this page are incorrect. The correct Berko Arms have the flags flying away from the centre ie the left hand flag flying westwards and the right hand flag eastwards. Has anyone got a pic of the correct version? I've tried cutting and pasting the arms from Berkhamsted Town Council but Wikipedia tells me it has the wrong extensions? ?? Non comprendo! Brixtonboy (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, good spot. Both versions exist side by side on related Berko websites but the official version according to Berco Town Council is as you suggest. As to copying from other sites be aware that this is not permitted as per WP policy unless permission has been obtained and in any case use of the coat of arms without the permission of the official custodian is normally required. Elsewhere coats of arms have been taken down for this reason This may account for the version in use being redrawn as it is! An Admin can advise here better than I can on this. The best solution is to use a photo of the sign hanging outside the Town Hall. If someone has one otherwise I will try and get one next time I pass the Town Hall. Tmol42 (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for that. From memory the town hall arms are correct. Its a shame the arms outside the civic centre have been repainted incorrectly. The pillar now bears a golden castle. Must be Hemel people! Brixtonboy (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Re use of Coat of Arms, by Royal proclamation the arms were granted to the Borough and People of Berkhamsted so anyone from Berko has the legal right to post them on Wikipedia if they wish. Brixtonboy (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Re usage by the people, nice idea re the grant of the proclamation but the guardians of such arms in this case the local authority still owe a duty to 'the people' to protect it from being used inappropriately. Using an image published online or elsewhere by someone else is not considered 'fair use' unless such permission is given. So a photo of the arms displayed in a public place uploaded to WP Commons probably avoids the problem.  All may be OK in this case but if interested check out Wikipedia:Image use policy Tmol42 (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
As per dicussion above I have uploaded own image containing coat of arms including correctly orientated flags as displayed on the town hall building Tmol42 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. Thank you ¬¬¬¬  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brixtonboy (talk • contribs) 13:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

@ Minimac
I'd never heard of the above until you added it to Berko's listing. I am now enlightened. I reverted your addition because checking the definition, Wikipedia defines a Linear Settlement as one that gains its shape due to a major transport route. You listed the Grand Union Canal and the A41 as those routes. However, Berko assumed its shape as it grew along the Bulbourne Valley, part of the Chiltern Hills. It was already long and thin rather than spherical for 400 years or so before the Grand Union Canal was dug in the 1700s. Indeed if you look at a map one can see how the Roman roadbuilders, the Duke of Bridgewater and his canal and the railway builders were all squeezed down the same valley as the chepaest route from the midlands to London. Topology rather than transport links determined Berko's shape. Brixtonboy (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
SOMEONE needs to edit the article to mention Cecily of York, who lived there as a widow.Smlark (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

clearly this is something you know about, could ypu not be that SOMEONE who contributes to the article? Tmol42 (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The lower portion of the page was totally red and this seems to have been caused by the above table. I've deleted the latter and the article appears normal. However, perhaps someone who knows what to do would be able to repair the table.
Mikeo1938 (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the Template for the railway route map which is not appropriate for this article page. Already appears on the Berkhamsted railway station article.Tmol42 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Over the last few weeks I have made many edits to the article page, but for most of the period I was fairly ill and made many editing errors. I apologise and gradually I am tidying them up. --  BOD -- 00:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Book Citations Referenced to in the Sources section. In process of fixing the remainder.
39   Liddiard 2005, pp. 111–112 
40  Williamson 2010, p. 219
51  Brown 1989, p. 52 
52  Pettifer 1995, p. 105
63  Wolstenholme 1883, pp. 46–47
65 Thomson 2008, Axtell, Daniel --  BOD -- 22:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

check above, but to do*  65 Thomson 2008, Axtell, Daniel   and    24 Whitlock 1968, preface. --  BOD -- 00:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The person who is editing the Berkhamsted (Hertfordshire) page has just sent me an email message about permision to use information on the Genealogy in Hertfordshire web site . Due to my finger slipping when I was deleting a spam messes their message was also accidently deleted. Could they contact me again at chris@hertfordshire-genealogy.co.uk.  I am very happy to help on this - or any other Hertfordshire page, including providing higher resolution images of historic (and out of copyright) maps, engravings, early postcards, etc.  (in effect my web site is a specialist site - set up with similar aims to wikipedia - starting as a bulletin board in the late 1990s and as a web site in 2001.)
Chris Reynolds  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.217.229 (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC) 

Many thanks Chris I am very grateful for your offer and shall recontact you --  BOD -- 00:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I know that @Jonesey95: has started a CE on this, but I'm thinking he or she may be offline, and hope some CEing from me does not get in the way.
@Bodney:, I'm happy for you to revert any change I make; I'll try to be very clear in my edit summaries what I'm doing and why; and if needsbe, bring issues here for discussion. I think much of what I'll do will start in about three hours, but here's a start. A few observations from my readthroughs; please feel free to address any which you're minded to address, and to discuss and dissent here.

(Bod1) I will try to notify you here if any factual errors arise ... I better not touch the article atm :)  Many thanks for this input and discussion.
(BOD5) I hope I have satisfied some of the questions below, if you need more info let me know. Explanation of the various (Bod1) to (Bod5) etc ..I did not sign/date every answer to each query ...Bod1, Bod2, Bod3 etc are just seperate visits as I try to give answers.
.............

The Lede/Lead. I don't really much like it. P1 is okay, although the last sentence is not - we're discussing Berkh, and so to know that two other towns are in Dacorum is not lead-worthy. P2 and P3 ... well, for me, the lead should summarise the article. This lead does not; it picks up on three or so interesting points. I think maybe the history should be in order, so we hear about the 5000 years, the ango-saxons, etc, before we get to 1066 .. and then we should get some contemporary history.
(Bod1) Agreed about Tring and Hemel, was thinking the same. (-> This could be moved to the local governance section)
(Bod1) Appreciate and agree regards P2 & P3 ... P3 is a bit bitty
(Bod2) P2 covers 1066 and the occupants of the castle ... which are by far the most notable events in Berko.
--Done--
.............

Subsidiarity ... possibly just my term. It's already a long article, and we need to have a really good reason for including in this page content which is primarily about another subject for which we have a page. Excellent example is the "Expand for a timeline of historical holders, occupants, and events at the castle", where we have an article on the castle. IMO that content should be in the Castle page and should not be in the Berkh page. Those interested in more castle detail can get it from the castle page.
(Bod1) The are quite a few articles that look at a subject from a different angle, Norman conquest of England and the Battle of Hastings for instance. The effect and relationship of the royal castle and all it's famous occupants on the town is I believe part of the character of the town.  The golden age of Berko was the - 12th to 14th century, during the royal castles effect on the town  so I wanted to stress that.
(Bod2) The castle is physically very close to the centre of the town, it was the major influence on the town. The notability of all the holders the castle made the town more notable in history.
(Bod5) The castle was also a major employer in the town and its abandonment had a dire effect on the town, the population in 1307 of the town was 2000 to 2500, (Castle abandoned 1495) in 1563 the population has been estimated at only 545 (these figures are from the same source)--  BOD -- 19:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
(Bod5) I originally approached the castle in two seperate sections .... (A) History - espicially in context with the town - & (B) from the Interesting Places to visit within the town angle. I later combined them. --  BOD -- 19:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Other examples of concern under this heading include:
The BFI operation
(Bod1) BFI maybe I over detailed the section.
(Bod3) It could be incorporated in the Arts sub-section, though it is not open to the public. Or in the Local economy, employment, and commerce section.
--Done--

Ashridge (is it really in Berkh? The Ashridge page seems to think not)
(Bod1) Ashridge was once part of Berkhamsted castle's royal hunting park. I believe the countryside around the town is an integral part of 'leafy Berkhamsted'. The borders between Ashridge and Berkhamsted Common are vague (exampled by the Battle of Berhamsted Common). (I am biased because I was born in Little Gaddnesden which is in the middle of it)
(Bod3) Berkhamsted is the closest urban center, though the village of Little Gaddnesden is closer to Ashridge.
Ashridge's connection is like other nearby villages only an historic one based on the royal park / hunting grounds etc.  The village and Ashridge Management College etc do not warrent the inclusion as a bespoke section.Tmol42 (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Understand and appreciate, if it is allowed to stay it could be folded back into the "interesting places section".--  BOD -- 15:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
minor side note: Watching a film and recognized a very Ashridge type forest, and yes parts of the musical film "Into the Woods" were shot there. http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/ashridge-estate/--  BOD -- 18:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The National Trust postal address for the estate is Moneybury Hill, Ringshall, Near Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, HP4 1LT  ...while Ashridge Management College is Ashridge, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire HP4 1NS, United Kingdom.--  BOD -- 19:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Frankly that's pretty daft logic and just adds no weight and puts a big nail in the arguement's coffin. Postal Districts are an adminstrative device for sorting letters and parcels by Royal Mail and have no relevance in determining what is valid to include in the article  Why not include sections on other villages with HP4 post codes, including out of county in Buckinghamshire? Propose that the Ashridge section is deleted.Tmol42 (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
OK :) understand (though Ashridge is not a village, but a stately building and a now seperate Forest). I would prefer the moving it back into the interesting places section, if that is OK, rather than complete deletion.--  BOD -- 20:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to push this point again but WP requires us to be strict about the contents of articles. Places [Sites] of interest should be those in the town/ town council area or, if not located within, only ones closely connected to the settlement, such as a stadium, railway station, golf club etc. Settlements and their facilities, notable people and other notible features should normally be detailed in the relevant article for the settlement / civil parish / landmark etc. Whilst the distinctiveness of Northchurch has been preserved, as there are articles on, for example Ashridge and Great Gaddesden, this is where relevant information should be unless there is some particular connection with the town. Marlins Chapel is located within Northchurch civil parish but is remote from the village and as it's an historic site in the environs of Berko its inclusion seems valid.Tmol42 (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
OK to push, I value your experience and input. If Ashridge must go, then the Budhist Temple at Great Gaddnesden (which is in the Interesting Places section) ought to go to.--  BOD -- 23:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Ashridge Management College - appears in a caption, no text in the Ashridge section, nor the education section. We're none the wiser. (Although this may fall with my Ashridge comment, above)
(Bod1) Ahh...yes it should have been better linked into the Ashridge sub section.
(Bod2) Ashridge Management College uses Ashridge House, (Bod3) which partly incorporates the ruined medieval priory
College has no direct connection today. See my comments under Ashridge above.Tmol42 (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
-- Waivering --
....................
DEMOGRAPHICS

Not thrilled by the external links in the body of the Demography section. Could these not be demoted to footnotes or external links?
(Bod1&3) Moving - external sources - to footnotes or external links are both good ideas.
Not very thrilled by hidden table in the demographics section. But not sure what recommendation to make yet.
(Bod1) I agree...I am not good at cutting stuff that is factual correct, there is too much detail.
(Bod3) It gives a clear demographic view of the town, but I do see ( and am concerned) that the info exceeds other places articles...which is one of the reasons why I put it in a hidden table. More accurate data is available in those three links, the trouble for the average internet user like myself is wadding through the complex statistic and adding the three sources together. Regards the existing table - What to cut and how to present it simply.
I think we miss a table of population across the years ... not sure if the info can be sourced, but we do have numbers in a number of paragraphs. Can they be brought together?
(Bod1) A table like many other places pages would be good, never known how to easily create one.
(Bod1) slide 41 in the populationmatters.org/documents/problem_population.ppt is tantelising.
(Bod3) We have data going back to the uncertain Domesday figures, what I am mostly missing 20th Century Data.
Maybe have a Demography -History, and -Contemporary subheadings, with a population-by-time table in the first, and contemporary demographics in the second.
(Bod3) I understand. Yes.
Have we abstracted al facts from the church publication? If so, is that alright from a copyright point of view?
(Bod1) Even though it is in a different format, maybe I did extract too much from the church publication which was in nice family friendly graphs.
Demography section references parish names which we have not heard before; could they not be introduced and described in the preceding governance section
(Bod1) Maybe better connected to the Religious site section? St Peters is mentioned in the History Section.
-- Not Done Yet --
.....................

Some odds & sods:
There's mention in captions of Berkh's "first" and "current" railway station, but no text explaining that. Were there two stations?
(Bod1) Yes. The History section of Berkhamsted railway station explains it well. (I wish they had not vandalised the castle with the first station.)
(Bod2) The second station was to do with the widening of the railway
(BOD5) The dates of the two stations are in the subsection, but as you say not the reason for the replacement, so it could be made clearer.--  BOD -- 19:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
--Done--

"the present spelling was adopted in 1937." By whom? Reference? I'm sure there must be something more to say here. Who gets to adopt names? A council?
(Bod1) Edit from a previous editor, probably a quote from the local Historian ...Percy Birchtnel ...Will need to find out if it is possible.
Unable to find anything on the web, apart from the entry in the extensive blog http://hertfordshire-genealogy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/how-do-you-spell-berkhamsted.html
--Done--

No other arts but the cinema? Then make the subheading "Cinema". (Or find some more arts)
(Bod1) Agreed, I am not aware of any other being notable.
The are a couple of small hard to spot gallaries and various Amatuer groups... I might be being blind to the obvious. Berkhamsted is fairly close to London so folks might take the train there. Hemel Hempstead, Watford, Aylesbury etc are all big towns. Nothing much comes up in google sweeps.
--Done--

"The Inns of Court War Memorial on the Common illustrates Lt Col Errington's affection for the area." Does it? How?
(Bod1) Mmm think I am guilty of a lazy copy and paste editing fault there.
Every two weeks I think I go past it, I might be able to check it physically but then that is probably original research.--  BOD -- 22:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
--Done--

"Growth of the early modern town (18th to 20th century)" seems to be mainly silent about C18, and about the C20, trenches aside.
(Bod1) Yes that has concerned me.
(Bod2.5) Nothing much on the web, if i can get hold of the Birtchnel book that would help. Berkhamsted's main notable/interesting History was medieval and I was worried the article was getting too long.
(Bod3) Berko seemed to have been in decline from the 15th to the 19th centuries. The are some references to genteel walks around the castle. Peter the Wildboy was a local in the 18th century, but he lived both in Northchurch and Berko and I did not want to steal from that village's notable stuff.
--Needs attention, but unable to satisfy-- 
.............
So. More later, I hope. Time to do something else now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Replies by  (Bod1) --  BOD -- 22:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I am very grateful of this input Tagishsimon (talk), I think pages are improved by many eyes looking over them and I think I am less protective than I might seem.--  BOD -- 22:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
These were quick answers from a tired junior editor, I might/can provide more detail whe/if required.--  BOD -- 22:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
(Bod2) Couple of additions at 2am my time.--  BOD -- 02:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

(Bod3) replies added and Question: I could fix those two clarify tags in the religion section with a reference or two, but avoiding touching the article.--  BOD -- 14:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I was misunderstanding the tag clarify. Would a wikilink satisfy the Methodist one? not sure about the first.--  BOD -- 14:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to make clear I might protest and defend, but will abide by any decision (more so if than one person states it) that will improve the article.--  BOD -- 21:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
............
Question about headings
(←)  Question to @Jonesey95: and yourself @Tagishsimon: does every subsection have - to be - a sub heading in the contents table ... i was simply worried that the contents table might be too long.

Previous to the editing visit of P.S. Burton, the climate data was a hidden table. The data was not dissimilar to a thousand other places in south east england. I guess by convention it needs to be on the page. Was hidding it okay?--  BOD -- 02:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I will be away from WP for a few days and will resume copy edits when I return. In the meantime, feel free to hack and slash. I would prefer some discussion before you undo any of the consistency changes that I recently made. Those consistency edits are not complete, by the way: I added {{convert}} templates to the miles and kilometres, but I have yet to deal with all of the feet and metres. If you want to make those consistent while I am gone, go for it. If not, let me know whether I should edit to make feet or metres the preferred unit of measure; the article currently goes back and forth between them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Go for meters, as we live in a metric age, I apologise for not noticing the inconsistency.--  BOD -- 18:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I set everything to use feet for now, since there are so many measurements of pre-metric distances and dimensions, but the convert template makes that easy to flip (add or remove |order=flip to set metres as the preferred unit throughout). – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
.......................
GREEN BELT
@Tmol42: I would argue that Berkhamsted is within the Green Belt, even though the exact urban area of the town is not...the green belt wraps around the town completely on the map? So Berko could be said to be within the Green Belt?  see http://www.stalbans.gov.uk/Images/SP_EB_GBR_Part1_Nov2013_DacorumParcelAssessments.pdf --  BOD -- 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This was in the Lead/Lede section.--  BOD -- 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Green Belt is a planning designation which is codified within District Authority Local Plans and their equivalents. If you look at the Planning Policy pages for Dacorum DC you will find that the built up area of the town, like all such similar towns, is explicitly not part of the designated Green Belt area. As is the case with AONB designation it is true to say the town is surrounded by 'Green Belt land' which is what is correctly stated in the body of the article. For a map and access to policies see Here.Tmol42 (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
By your arguement one might as well say Greater London is in the Green Belt because it surrunded by land designated as Green Belt.Tmol42 (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Mmmm, maybe I should have said 'Surrounded by the Metropolitan Green Belt' ...but then I guess this is a minor point ...  I am more grateful for your dispationate input.--  BOD -- 09:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


### Copy edit complete
I have completed a requested copy edit under the auspices of the Guild of Copy Editors. I have added a number of "clarify" and "inconsistent" tags where I was unable to fix particular sentences.
--Done (except the Demographic section mess, which is partly hidden until it can be cleaned up--
Overall, it is a lovely article. I commend the diligent work of the editors who created it. 
I think the section on the castle is too long, especially the long list of inhabitants and owners, given that the castle has its own article. I recommend shrinking that long list to a short prose paragraph. Focus on the key historical facts and the castle's significance in different time periods. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
--Done (well section reduced by 6000 units)-- 

I am so grateful and pleased with this copyedit, as mentioned on Jonesey95's talk page, i will be able work on the suggestions and points raised from Tuesday onwards.--  BOD -- 18:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I have started tackling the tags raised by the copy edit by Jonesey95 (talk) and the copy edit discussion above. Some of which, like the prose version of the castle history and the demographic section will be tackled at the weekend. I have personally been unable to removed Ashridge completely from the article due to its long association with the town, reflected by various mentions throughout the articles history section, and believe that a reasonable connection still exists (but that is partly based on local knowledge).--  BOD -- 20:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
An aside ...truthfully, I am not sure how I am going to bang the demographic section into to shape.--  BOD -- 09:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


### The Continueing Copy Edit Adventures of the Berko Article
It is really good that this article is recieving a very thorough examination by more than one copy editor :) It is being thoroughly spring cleaned. I will mostly step back again as you edit @Tagishsimon: (apart from filling in where you request answers) I thought I would add some notes, queries and feeble explanations here too.

regards Akeman street ... I put it at the top the para (changed in your edit 14:06, 1 April 2015‎ ) because it was already a pre existing route prior to the Roman engineering upgrade.
--  BOD -- 23:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

So. The castle section. I come to the conclusion that we should be interested in the castle so far as it affects the town and we should not be very interested in its architectural design - that should be covered on the castle page. My preference would be to snip the first paragraph down to a very few (2, 3) sentences of bare description. I'm good with the content of the rest of the paragraphs (with some subbing). I'm still predisposed against the castle event timeline, which I think should be on the castle article, or, at least, not on the town article since it tends to be squarely about the castle (who died, who was imprisoned) rather than about the town. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the architectural description and timeline as  both you @Tagishsimon: and @Jonesey95: suggested, removing 6,000 wikipedia thingies. I admit having big trouble choosing & reducing this non trivial history which had a significant influence on the town during its occupancy. I have a hard time deciding which king or VIP occupancy is more important than the other, and all four new paragraphs contain significant events that would have affected the adjacent town. I hope it is alright, but all things can be improved.--  BOD -- 13:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Bod. I'll go through it slowly sometime soon; at first glance, still a bit long, but heading in very much the right direction. I don't know if you're editing the castle page - I guess I should go and check - but clearly any useful info knocked out of the Berko article should be found in or added to the castle article. There's no question that useful info is useful; merely the question as to which page or pages it should be on. I applaud your approach, btw, which is to act on advice even when your inclinations point the other way. That's very commendable, and I thank you. I trust you'll continue to fight your corner, though :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Many Thanks, please edit away :) ... (tiny muffled voice: one day I might be brave enough to put the page up for review). The castle page has its own castle description albiet shorter and of course longer historical discription, so the timeline would simply repeat the good work there.--  BOD -- 15:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"Close to Bridgewater School". That location clue only works for people who know Berko. I don't, and so am none the wiser. I'm looking for "in the centre of town" or "on the western outskirts", or wherever. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
--Done--
Spot on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and please don't feel the need to stop editing. I'm working subsection by subsection, slowly. There's no need for you to stand aside. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if 8. Religous sites' should be moved into the Culture & leisure section, as a subheader 8.n Religion? I'd also be inclined to move Twin towns into the Culture & leisure section, and to add a See also section to hold the link to Berko people. (And I could be wrong about both of these. I don't like Associations with the town as I don't find its meaning immediately apparant. But it's a shame, if so, that we have to have a See also.) And we need to lose the "Main article" link, I think, and instead have an inline link to the church, since the section itself is about more than solely the parish church. I'll make that latter change now (which as normal does not pre-empt you from changing it back if you greatly disagree. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Suggest you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements and follow the comprehensive guidelines here plus refer to the suggested model articles for standardising the wording of section headings and where to locate content. Hope this helps.Tmol42 (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I am unsure about the move, definitely not against it. Maybe I was thinking of culture in smaller way, but it can encompass more. Regards Associations again I kinda agree ( if I added anything I was merely following perceived guidelines - your honour). Wikipedia ‘rules’ are not cast in stone, but will the page be improved if we make those changes and would we bother to fend of folks who adhere to the guidelines who might wish to correct it. I am not sure the changes would be worth the effort. Berko people page is …um crap..and needs work …sometime. Grateful for your input Tmol.--  BOD -- 15:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I am def happy with a tidy number of headings in the contents list ... too many makes it look cluttered.--  BOD -- 16:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@BOD Nobody owns this article! The guidelines on how to write about settlements has been built over time and through concensus by those involved in the Wikipedia Geography Project and is based on the policies set out in the Manual of Style. Other editors may seek to make changes perhaps following these guidelines and the overarching policies. I for one had difficulty understanding your ramblings above, in particular......but will the page be improved if we make those changes and would we bother to fend of folks who adhere to the guidelines who might wish to correct it. I am not sure the changes would be worth the effort. Please can you clarify. Tmol42 (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I have never claimed ownership. I think my ramblings are clear enough. First will be the page be improved by making layout changes that do not adhere strictly to the guidelines, I am personally okay about that. Two someone is bound to object and/or correct the page to fit the the guidelines. Three, however much I/we etc like the non standard layout is it worth the effort, because of Two. --  BOD -- 16:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
What does Articles about UK settlements should normally follow the guidelines outlined below and also the WP:UKGUIDE and the Manual of Style, however these are not 'written in stone' and can be adjusted where common sense suggests that an exception is appropriate with an overall aim of professionalism, simplicity and greater cohesion of Wikipedia articles. mean?--  BOD -- 17:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
In case of doubt ... I am open minded about anything that makes the page more readable for a visitor.  I am open to change, would prefer to avoid editorial conflict. I am simply a co-gardener of the page, who has some local knowledge.--  BOD -- 17:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@Tmol42:'s advice is good. There are cogent reasons for seeking to align Berko's headers with the guidelines; and reading through that page, I come away with ideas for content that's lacking in Berko - I think we might treat that page as, in part, a checklist, to see if we have all of the suggested content. Equally, and if it comes to pass, if we can produce cogent reasons for departing from the guidelines, then we should feel free to do so. But we do need to have a very good reason. I'm not overly thrilled with all aspects of the guidelins - religious sites, again - but because the guidelines are a distillation of wisdom they are owed some deference. As an aside, you seem to me to be one of the least owny people I've worked with in recent times, considering the investment you now have in this article. Finally, doubtless we should have reached for the guidelines a few days ago; I'm glad to see them arrive now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with everybody. Missing from my verbal relexes above is that  - I most definetly agree that we should not stray from the guidelines unless we have good reason and we are able to give good reasons for those departures. I have personally found the guidelines to be a valuable guide in my research for this article. I have struggled with the articles contents order with - History and Geography/Geology and changed their places a few times - the guide says History first, but to me it seems more logical to describe the landscape first, as its story is far older.--  BOD -- 11:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
No probs. Good call. I might have looked at a bit more history before jumping in. Dacorum detour as a note is a much better solution. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I should have provided better edit notes, but I have been distracted. I have brought a second hand copy of the Hastie "Berkhamsted, an Illustrated History" 1999 a little dated but the latest local history book. I will be able to add a little more detail to some sections but hopefully not too much.--  BOD -- 23:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Bodney, not sure if you've had a trawl through the Internet Archive / Gutenberg / Hathi for old texts relating to Berko. A cursory search points to stuff that might be interesting, either in terms of content or reference. fwiw, &c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Internet Archive
Hathi Trust
Project Gutenberg
These are very deep research waters and I am a bit afraid of drowning. The Hathi Trust is new for me and looks like an excellent resource. I wish I still had Percy Birtchnell's A Short History of Berkhamsted (or had Scot Hastie's Berkhamsted, an Illustrated History ). Mostly I guess this article is weakest on present day stuff.--  BOD -- 12:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I am so grateful for all the copyeditors who have kindly made so many improvements (in so many ways) to this page. It is greatly appreciated, the page is much better.
I must admit I am stuck about what to do about the demography section. Sometimes I cant think how to fix things.
Any help would be appreciated.--  BOD -- 00:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've not engaged with demography yet. My opening suggestions would be to check out the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography#Featured_articles and see what sort of demography layout / content / style they have, and see if there are lessons to be learned. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I was just avoiding the very obvious, hoping that the would be a magical easier way than digging deep and mine the 2011 census reports for Berkhamsted Castle Ward, Berkhamsted East Ward and Berkhamsted West Ward. Luckily I found the HertLis website. I am hoping the simple citation is ok. I know the that the revised section could be improved by copy edit etc.--  BOD -- 20:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to find out something about Berkhamstead (however it might be called) so looked on Wikipedia - obviously! I was amazed at the quality of the work here, inspired, perhaps, by the varied and interesting history of the town itself. I want to thank all concerned. 82.132.233.93 (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I took another look at this article, and noticed lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The traditional blazon for the coat of arms described the bordure as "bezanty", i.e. bearing bezants (gold roundels), but without a number specified. It seems to have been conventionally represented as 13 bezants, as we show it in the image in the infobox, and also in the photo of the board outside the town hall. However, under the "confirmation" issued in 2024, the number is now specified as 15, as stated in the "Arms" section (citing a College of Arms newsletter, which itself contains an image of the actual deed of confirmation, with the wording legible). This change probably should be noted somewhere, and perhaps the infobox image updated. 78.33.29.98 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)


### Berkhamsted