Talk:Romford/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Famous Residents 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History expansion - brewery 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Crime

message: 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)
thread_title: Urban area

message: I want to get this article to good article status. Here are the criteria—
</noinclude>
:
:(a) ; and
:(b) . Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
:
:(a) ;
:(b) ;Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article. and
:(c) .
:
:(a) ;This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. and
:(b) .
.
.Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
:Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
:(a) ; and
:(b) .The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
<noinclude>
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)
thread_title: Good article criteria

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I've updated. The differences were minor so it caused no problems. MRSC (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:UKCITIES]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Former market town? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And people are still edit warring years later. daft. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Roxy the dog agreed - mad to think this has been continued for 3 years!. –Davey2010Talk 15:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

text: FOR Info : I have requested page protection. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romford is in London 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Ceremonial county versus London borough 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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, –Davey2010Talk 13:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Distances in lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Romford is in London not Essex, and no, historic counties don't exist.