Talk:Middlesex/Archive 1

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

message: I've made a proposal to move this to Middlesex - based on the number of links meant for this article that are actually pointing at Middlesex (see Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Middlesex ), it's historical precedence and the precedence of choosing the English county for the articles at Essex, Sussex, Norfolk etc.. Jooler
:The discussion for this page move may be found at Talk:Middlesex/page move. -- Francs2000 | Talk  19:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to move

message: As far as I can see, only two of the Traditional counties of England are not at an undisambiguated county name - Middlesex, England and Cumberland, England.  Is the argument for main article disambiguation of Cumberland any better than it is for Middlesex? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that Cumberland, too should be at the undisambiguated location. john k 19:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cumberland

message: The article STILL says Middlesex is a former postal county. There is nothing former about it; I LIVE in Middlesex, and it does very much still exist. Not just in people's minds (subjectively true), but in postal reality (objectively true). Someone please edit this.
22nd November 2005
BryanAJParry
:It is still a traditional county — that is indisputable. It does still exist, but ALL postal counties of the United Kingdom are "former postal counties" because the Royal Mail (who invented them) have stopped using them. Owain 13:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that 'former postal county' is the language now used by Royal Mail to refer to them. As they invented them they are perfectly within their rights to rename them. MRSC 16:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The point is the implication is that letters sent to such-and-such a place, Middlesex, will not get where they are going. This is not true. 82.44.212.6 23:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Postal counties were always a mess and I'm glad that we're shot of them! I have however clarified that Middlesex can be used on Middlesex addresses with the Royal Mail's blessing. Owain (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: At the time, piracy and smuggling were, formally speaking, committed "on the high seas in the county of Middlesex".)
Did Middlesex have some legal particularity then?
:Yes. It was the place where the King's Bench happened to be sitting for much of the time. Hence the use of the Bill of Middlesex and so on. Strictly, the King's Bench was moveable court and the Common Pleas fixed. Though, by 1300, they both sat in the same room on a regular basis. Francis Davey 13:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piracy 

message: Anyone object to adding parishes of middlesex?  Is very usefull information to family historians. NSWelshman 15:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "division into hundreds" section is mostly based on parishes of the ancient county. Here is the full list:  MRSC 19:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parishes 

message: A "Middlesex Show" has been held at the Hillingdon show ground in recent years, which was originally supposed to commemorate Middlesex Day. The event has been spoiled by bad weather in the past, and it was put on hold for a while, but was held this year in June (2008). I'll try and get some more info - but can't promise anything! Gorebridge (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I have just found this  unattributed piece on a cricket league's site. Although it is not dated, 1811 + 191 years makes 2006. However the regimental museum referred to at Bruce Castle closed in 1992, so I can't quite figure this out??? Oddly enough there is no mention of the day at  or  which seem to be approved by Russell Grant, who founded the Middlesex Family Foundation at Middlesex on May 16th 2006, Lozleader 11:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't find any reliable coverage other than the EDM, which is vague itself as to the significance. MRSC • Talk 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So should it be removed or just rewritten? Lozleader 10:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I do a search on the ProQuest newspaper database for 'Middlesex Day' and ignore those including 'cricket' I get zero results. I get the feeling this was something informal decided by someone associated with the cricket team or some military group and the EDM was designed to try and gain wider appeal. I suppose we could go down to Brentford or Westminster Guidhall on 16 May and see if the bunting is out, then we will know if it is 'celebrated'. Seriously, it probably needs to be edited to say no more than is contained in the EDM as that is the only reliable source. MRSC • Talk 11:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I had already done a similar search, and as you say all cricket! Lozleader 13:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middlesex Day 

message: No boroughs until 1901. Was something preventing them being created before then? I feel like I remember reading something saying that (although it may be my imagination). 14:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. As can be seen here, there were a number of applications prior to 1901, and it took Ealing three attempts. There were also applications by Kensington and Westminster within the County of London prior to 1900. Lozleader (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Municipal boroughs

message: I'm sorry to say that this article needs some substantial improvment before it can pass GA.
*Lead definitely needs to be longer and more comprehensive.  Done.
*Year ranges need to use 1889–1965 not simple hyphens like 1889-1965.  Done.
*Short paragraphs of 1-2 sentences need to be expanded or integrated and merged into other paragraphs, the etymology section for example is very short. Same for the earldom section, market towns section and so forth.  Done.
*In Wikipedai WP:MOS, AD is to be avoided and CE used instead.  Done.
*Many unsourced paragraphs in the modern history section and also more one sentence paragraphs.  Done.
*Articles should aim to be prosified rather than have dot points. Done.
*Latter part of the the coat of arms section is unsourced.  Done.
*Dates are linked inconsistently.  Done.
*The references are not formatted consistently and filled in fully.  Done.
*It seems incomplete that you are only treating the area as an administrative district and treating it purely as a series of administrative rezonings and such. Usually articles about former countries and dynasties also describe what life was like in the said place. In this case, there is no kind of society type of information, which appears to be a problem.
Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 23:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the review. All these points are easy to deal with aside from the final one. The history of the area is so fundamentally linked to London that it is hard to separate the two. In early times the county was sparsely populated, so not much going on and in later years the story is effectively that of London, so would effectively replicate East End of London and other London-district articles. MRSC • Talk 18:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections entitled Settlement and economy and Population and development hopefully now plug this hole. MRSC • Talk 08:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have renominated the article. MRSC • Talk 17:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I support Common Era years in favour of the Anno Domini system, I must say that the Manual of Style makes no such preference, so Bananabucket is, in my opinion, mistaken in saying that the article ought to have CE years. Waltham, The Duke of 14:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA failed 

message: I suppose the extra-metropolitan local government before the Local Government Act 1894 ought to be mentioned (apart form a mention of "existing sanitary districts" it is missing at the moment). Looking at the 1871 census returns, Youngs, Historical Directories and the Victoria County History this seems to be the list:
Name                	Type                              	Local authority          	Formed                                      	Legislation
Acton               	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1865                                        	Local Government Act 1858
Chiswick            	Improvement Commissioners District	Improvement Commissioners	1858                                        	Chiswick Improvement Act 1858
Ealing              	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1863, extended to entire parish 1873        	Local Government Act 1858
Edmonton            	Local Board District              	Local Board of Health    	1850                                        	Public Health Act 1848
Enfield             	Local Board District              	Local Board of Health    	1850                                        	Public Health Act 1848
Hampton Wick        	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1863                                        	Local Government Act 1858
Harrow-on-the-Hill  	Local Board District              	Local Board of Health    	1850                                        	Public Health Act 1848
Hornsey             	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1867                                        	Local Government Act 1858
South Hornsey       	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1863                                        	Local Government Act 1858
Teddington          	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1867                                        	Local Government Act 1858
Tottenham           	Local Board District              	Local Board of Health    	1850 (Temporary Board of Health 1831 - 1832)	Public Health Act 1848
Twickenham          	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1868                                        	Local Government Act 1858
Uxbridge            	Local Board District              	Local Board of Health    	1849                                        	Public Health Act 1848
Friern Barnet       	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1883                                        	Local Government Act 1858
Brentford           	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1874                                        	Local Government Act 1858
Finchley            	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1878                                        	Local Government Act 1858
Hanwell             	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1885                                        	Local Government Act 1858
Hendon              	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1879                                        	Local Government Act 1858
Heston and Isleworth	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1875                                        	Local Government Act 1858
Norwood             	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1891                                        	Local Government Act 1858
Southgate           	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1881 (split off from Edmonton)              	Local Government Act 1858
Staines             	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1872                                        	Local Government Act 1858
Willesden           	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1874                                        	Local Government Act 1858
Wood Green          	Local Government District         	Local Board              	1888 (split off from Tottenham)             	Local Government Act 1858
If arranged by year, they would give an idea of the increasing urbansation of the county. 
Apparently, Uxbridge was the first local board established under the 1848 Act.
Not sure where it would fit into the existing structure of the article.....
Lozleader (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this would complete the picture. I've rejigged the sections a bit as the order was not entirely chronological. I suggest adding a section titled something like "Extra-metropolitan area" after the current "Expansion of the metropolis" section and possibly merged with the "Districts" section. MRSC • Talk 18:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This could now be added to History of local government districts in Middlesex (1894—1965) which could then be renamed History of local government districts in Middlesex. MRSC • Talk 17:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right you are... time permitting...18:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local government before 1894 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: 
Once the lists are taken care of, the article will pass, easily.  On hold for now.  weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback and comments. I've made changes that hopefully deal with this. MRSC • Talk 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly what needed to be done.  Congratulations, this is now a  good article!  Well done!  weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review: On hold 

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

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