Talk:Orpington

message: Hi, there are still many of the same problems with your text, and you are now acquiring new problems in that while your references may mention the name of the person, they do not in fact establish either their notability, or their connection with Orpington - for instance:- Gilderoy Scamp just leads to a photograph of the man, no further details apart from stating he was a resident of Folkestone. Similarly, with Gypsy Rose Lee, this was not the notable American of the same sobriquet, but a Gypsy queen living in Farnborough.
I'm likely to include the place names in the area's history text, as you have found some documentation for them. In an encyclopaedia it is not sufficient to throw a collection of unrelated 'facts' against the wall to see how many stick. They have to have some general notability and to be of wider interest. I hope that helps. Kbthompson (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, that's not what those references said. If material already exists in wikipedia, there is no need to repeat it here (and yes, you added it!) - that's the reason for the links. What my aim here is to put as much of the information you have in a form that is acceptable to wikipedia. If we don't do that, someone else will just delete it. By editing in wikipedia you agree that that you neither own what you say, and don't mind if someone edits it - even to the point of complete excision. We'll see what we can do, information needs to be independently verifiable by others - this prevents the many hoaxes that people attempt on wiki. Kbthompson (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a hierarchy of quality of references. Some like wikipedia are edited by individuals, and so are not reliable enough to meet the criteria of verifiability. Kbthompson (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checking 'Romany History' 

message: DOES THIS BUS GO TO ORPINGTON?! --MrMetalFLower (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Excuse me for the rather obscure meme but...

message: I don't know if this is valid. Maybe it should be removed from the article, it looks like vandalism to me Louisalena (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "and home to the nicest, caring girl ever called Zanna"

message: I altered the lead, the year Orpington was officially in London. It's common knowledge, reflected by articles here on Wikipedia, as well as multiple other sources of information that all London Boroughs including Bromley, came into being in 1965. Someone put a 1970something date with a print book as a source (book which I don't have). but that is simply untrue and contradicts all other wikipedia articles as well as other sources. I don't wish to delete a source, but it might be incorrect statement. I imagine the book means the first election held as a London Borough was in 1974. I don't know?
:Yes but the historic counties continue to exist, as confirmed by numerous government spokepersons (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/celebrating-the-historic-counties-of-england/celebrating-the-historic-counties-of-england). The administrative councils changed, not the county.WisDom-UK (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking, govt statements are not secondary sources (and neither is an act of parliament). Ideally, we should find confirmation of what the situation is in a publication from a reputable academic who is expert in the field. The casual and ambiguous use of the term 'county' can cause confusion, leading to uncertainty as to what is meant by the source. This ambiguity of meaning is further complicated when we get WP editors inserting their usually amateur interpretation of what a source is saying. We therefore end up with referenced statements about local govt reforms and historic counties that are effectively original research. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation is explained fairly well on the page for Historic Counties and various other pages covering English subdivisions. It is standard practice on Wiki for British places to state where that are now (administrative county) and the Historic county (if different). The government's ill-thought out local gov reforms and nomenclature since the 70s are to blame for the confusion. WisDom-UK (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree that successive local govt reforms have created the current mess. This goes back to the 1889 act but the seeds for later problems had been sewn even before then, see Metropolitan Commission of Sewers or Poor Law reforms. The WP guidelines on handling counties are, IMO, not dealt with at all well and they complicate the problem even more. As guidelines, they are based on consensus, which itself is based on editors' interpretation of the situation, which is personal opinion. The guidelines state that the historic counties no longer exist but have either disappeared or have been kept but altered into something new. Thus, Yorkshire was but is no longer, whereas Lancashire has been kept but significantly changed to make it something new. The idea of having two counties of Lancashire existing side-by-side and doing different things, is an anathema to many people, hence the guidelines that say the historic counties no longer exist. Nothing meaningful will occur on WP regarding the 'counties problem' until WP accepts that historic counties are currently extant entities. To do that we need an open minded debate, something hard to arrange with so many entrenched personal opinions. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The historic counties live! They were never abolished, and remain today as they have done for centuries. Whichever made-up entity collects the bins is irrelevant. This has been confirmed by numerous government figures down the years (https://britishcountyflags.com/county-definitions/). To wipe them from Wikipedia would be an act of cultural and historic vandalism. WisDom-UK (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

text: The guidelines, that say otherwise, are here . In respect of England, Scotland and Wales, a fundamental part of this guide is to reaffirm the long established position that we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries. If you want those guidelines to say the historic counties do in fact 'live', then I suggest you start a discussion there, because that is where the procedure for changing the guidelines should start. Based on the current guidelines, this Orpington article is wrong when it states in the lead that it it is located in the historic county of Kent. We should change 'is' to 'was'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is the first time I've seen that document, and right off the bat I can see several mistakes and misleading claims:
* The article states that 'the counties of England and Wales have undergone vast geographic transformation in the last few centuries' - this is simply untrue. Minus Middlesex (and that was 1888, hardly centuries ago), the counties remained essentially stable from the early Middle Ages (and in some cases earlier) down to the 1970s
* 'The counties of Scotland were officially abolished' - administratively yes, but as the gov. statements linked to above make clear, not as historic/cultural/social entities.
* 'Likewise the counties of Northern Ireland have no administrative role' - yes, true, but irrelevant. The continued existence of the six counties in NI as geographic/cultural areas is one of the few things the two sides there can agree on - all the NI place articles reflect this.
* 'A fundamental part of this guide is to reaffirm the long established position that we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries.' 'We'? 'Long-established'? 'Position'??? No, no, no. All loaded, misleading terms claiming a consensus that doesn't exist.
* 'Where counties have been abolished... these should have their own articles, but maintain that they no longer function as contemporary counties.' Muddies the point by using 'county' unqualified. Places like Westmorland are not administrative counties, but they are historic/traditional/cultural counties. 
Sadly, like so many 'controversial' topics on Wikipedia, a group of committed activists have banded together to create a set of guidelines which supports their own (highly contested, and I would say wrong) viewpoint, contrary evidence be damned, and then attempt to force everyone else to comply. I have seen this repeatedly on Wikipedia down the years, from the Falklands pages, Georgia, Israel, anything culture war-y - often I just don't bother editing those articles as I end up spending more time arguing on the talk page that actually editing/adding content.WisDom-UK (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

text: There isn't much point stating your case here. There are numerous discussions about this on different place name articles, but that is where they stay. You really must use the site I gave above if you want a discussion that will actually lead to change. Start a RfC. I will say one thing though - this county problem is not as simple as it might appear: stick rigidly to WP rules and procedure. First will to to find a RRS that says historic counties still exist. The flag website is not a RSS! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Kent to London year

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Orpington. 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/20100602000714/http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/docs/londonplan08.pdf to http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/docs/londonplan08.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) 16:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: My late parents lived in Orpington and mentioned that it was the last place in the UK to be hit by a WW2 V2 RocketAT Kunene 123 (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It is mentioned in the V-2 rocket#Operational history article, with a reference.Charles (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  V2 Rocket