Talk:Bedfordshire

message: I think there are two county mottos, but I'm not sure of the best way to phrase the distinction. There's the motto "Constant Be" (taken from Pilgrim's Progress, written when Bunyan was imprisoned in the county), and the one the council actually uses, "A Progressive County". (The two are amusingly contradictory, however.) Marnanel 20:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably unwise to conflate 'motto' and 'branding'/slogan. The motto is what the coat of arms bears, surely?. Icundell 14:09, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gonna say. The motto (as shown in the page image of the county arms) is indeed Constant Be. The "slogan" is currently A Progressive County, but it used to be A Nuclear Free Zone. This really comes down to the definitions of "Motto" and "Slogan". A quick glance at Slogan shows that Constant Be isn't one of those. Since a "motto" is defined as a heraldic device elsewhere on Wikip and the phrase Constant Be appears on the county's heraldry in the Bedfordshire entry itself, I'm deleting the citation needed flag. No-brainer? Not arf. Garrick92 12:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  County motto 

message: :Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

message: This is shown as being rhotic yet neither RP nor the county's dialects are rhotic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.42.241 (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: pronunciation

message: #On 1 April, 2009, a number of changes will occur that will affect a number of counties and districts in England, including some which fall within the remit of your project and/or county.
#The changes will necessitate a large number of changes to various articles on wikipedia.
#New articles may have to be written, old ones may have to be changed because they will then describe abolished former districts, etc, and numerous changes will have to be made to templates, category names, and articles about individual settlements to update information about local government.
#Because of this the Uk Geography Project has set up a specific taskforce to identify the changes to be made and then to coordinate the work of preparing for the changes and then implementing them when the changes occur on 1 April.
#The name of the taskforce is Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force or WP:2009ENGLAND.
#You are invited to join this taskforce to help us all improve wikipedia in these areas by making sure the information is kept updated, and accurate.
Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Announcement: The 2009 Structural Changes in Local Government in England: A Taskforce

message: Since 2009, Bedfordshire County Council no longer exists. Therefore should the flag and motto still be on this page? The flag (I believe) is the flag of Bedfordshire County Council, as is the motto. It seems a shame to lose the flag at least, but do they officially exist any more? Bleaney (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  County flag and motto 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bedfordshire. 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/20110728091019/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RegionalGVA.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RegionalGVA.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) 00:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bedfordshire. 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/20120907195225/http://viewfinder.english-heritage.org.uk/search/results.aspx?index=0 to http://viewfinder.english-heritage.org.uk/search/results.aspx?index=0&mainQuery=&searchType=all&form=basic&theme=&county=BEDFORDSHIRE&district=&placeName=
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) 23:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: : I do not agree with having a list of notable people section in this article as Bedfordshire is too big an area to lump everyone from there who's notable into one list; it's not of note to come from a particular county. For example, if I were to say I came from London (which I do, North Cheam), you would think the City of London, which is inaccurate. It is undue, would be the point I'm trying to put across.--Launchballer 15:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I would not think you came from the City of London, but I would think you came from Greater London, which is correct! Your example fails because it relies on people thinking the City of London encompasses Greater London, which it does not. There is no such similar confusion with Bedfordshire. However, a point could be made that what is there doesn't conform with the guidelines given in WP:UKCOUNTIES which state that the section should not be a simple list, but should be written in paragraph form. Yorkshire adopts a nicer solution for an extensive list, which is to have the section but immediately direct the reader to a separate article that is structured quite well. Lincolnshire has an extensive list (in its section 11.2), but it has a short written description next to each entry, which I suggest is much more acceptable than just a mere list, which is what is currently in this article. Looking at a number of other county articles, Lancashire doesn't have a separate section, but notable people are supplied in the relevant sections they might occur in. I suggest that, rather than merely deleting the section, it would have been better to save the list and work on either making a new "list of..." article including those names (for which most of them need to be given sources demonstrating notability anyway), or use some other solution. In fact, on reflection, they do seem unsuitable in their present form. So, I've deleted them again, but moved them here so that people can use them in a more acceptable way (as opposed to simply deleting the list).  DDStretch  (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable people 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: There seems to be disagreement on the figures used for ethnicity in the infobox with editors changing the percentages and being reverted for failing verification. That's Ok but the older figures are not sourced either. Although the changes and reversions involve different editors it could be regarded as edit warring. It's doubtful ethnicity figures are available for the ceremonial county now that its covered in total by unitary authorities so any figures produced would need to be added up from the three unitary authorities of Luton, Central Bedfordshire and Borough of Bedford. If the Office for National Statistics are not reporting a combined figure for the ceremonial county, why are we? The infobox figures are out of date and misleading; therefore I propose the ethnicity fields be removed from the infobox altogether. Thoughts? Pinging involved editors @JMF, @Matt Lunker, @Volomoto, @112.118.252.79, @112.118.7.240 (presumably the IP pings work). Rupples (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: (and Mid Bedforshire). Yes, I agree completely and am annoyed that I failed to spot that the original figures were uncited. Nevertheless, it was highly WP:DISRUPTIVE to give an irrelevant "citation", which can only mean that the proposed figures are equally fictional. Meanwhile, IMO, the lines should be hidden until they can be sourced properly (and presented here for agreement that they are honestly sourced). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: All these recent edits concerning ethnicity on the Bedfordshire pages and also Buckinghamshire appear to originate in Hong Cong, with either no sources or extremely questionable sources.  It appears to be a sockpuppet trying to distrupt the Bedford, Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire pages and either a ban or protection should be considered? Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have temporarily suspended that entry in the infobox pending resolution. (At talk:Buckinghamshire#Ethnicity in infobox, I have done the equivalent calculation and it is awaiting validation. It was time-consuming, not difficult.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's better not to have the data at all, than include misleading figures. Rupples (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Thanks @JMF for doing the calcs. Least I can do, after raising the issue here is to check them through. All OK except for a 0.1 rounding difference in the Bedfordshire percentages, which total 99.9%. The one that is nearest to a rounding up is Mixed at 3.84%. Should this be changed to 3.9% to arrive at 100% total, or just left? Also noticed stats percentages come to 99.9% for Central Beds and 100.1 for Luton, but these are as listed in NOMIS, which doesn't itself show 100% totals for the percentages. Rupples (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My inclination is to leave them as calculated. Rounding errors are to be expected, indeed not having any is suspicious. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity in infobox 

message: I have put together a calculation of the figures for Bedfordshire. Here is my working. 
Sources: 
* 
* 
* 
 Bedford
Group                                                  	Number 	%
All usual residents                                    	185,224	100
Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh                    	23,263 	12.6
Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African	9,848  	5.3
Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups                        	8,586  	4.6
White                                                  	140,174	75.7
Other ethnic group                                     	3,353  	1.8
 Central Bedfordshire
Group                                                  	Number 	%
All usual residents                                    	294,251	100
Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh                    	10,321 	3.5
Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African	7,018  	2.4
Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups                        	8,885  	3.0
White                                                  	265,545	90.2
Other ethnic group                                     	2,482  	0.8
 Luton UA
Group                                                  	Number 	%
All usual residents                                    	225,261	100
Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh                    	83,325 	37.0
Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African	22,735 	10.1
Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups                        	9,620  	4.3
White                                                  	101,798	45.2
Other ethnic group                                     	7,783  	3.5
 Bedfordshire (all)
Group                                                  	Number 	%
All usual residents                                    	704,736	100
Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh                    	116,909	16.6
Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African	39,601 	5.6
Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups                        	27,091 	3.8
White                                                  	507,517	72.0
Other ethnic group                                     	13,618 	1.9
If somebody would validate my calculations and sourcing, we can update the article accordingly. (Personally, I fail to see the value of such arbitrary divisions: it just feeds racist conspiracy theories.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks @JMF for doing the calcs. Least I can do, after raising the issue here is to check them through. All OK except for a 0.1 rounding difference in the Bedfordshire percentages, which total 99.9%. The one that is nearest to a rounding up is Mixed at 3.84%. Should this be changed to 3.9% to arrive at 100% total, or just left? Also noticed stats percentages come to 99.9% for Central Beds and 100.1 for Luton, but these are as listed in NOMIS, which doesn't itself show 100% totals for the percentages. Rupples (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My inclination is to leave them as calculated. Rounding errors are to be expected, indeed not having any is suspicious. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Calculations