Talk:Abingdon-on-Thames/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

The railway branch line mentioned in sentence 1 has long since closed.

Hi Trainspotter, welcome to Wikipedia. The way that Wikipedia works is by hoping that users will make articles better and more factual. So if you see something that could be improved or something that's just plain wrong then just go right ahead and edit it. You might like to read Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Have fun -- Ams80 16:43 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"So if you see something that could be improved or something that's just plain wrong then just go right ahead and edit it."

But when you do correct something which is plain wrong, and you provide citations to back that up, expect others to immediately revert it, refusing to provide any citations for their own incorrect statements but just refer you to "Wikipedia guidelines" which are themselves flawed. 87.112.142.201 (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions for counties are often discussed, and the outcome has always been the same: use current counties. I suggest you open a discussion at the talk page of the UK-wide geography project, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Berkshire IS the "current county" in which Abingdon is located, as it has been for centuries. It is only ADMINISTRATIVE boundaries which were changed by the Local Govt. Act 1972, but, confusingly, the legislation refers to these areas as counties as well. It is quite clear if you read the actual legislation that the decreed changes were not altering actual county boundaries, only the boundaries of these "administrative counties," which themselves were already much younger than the traditional counties. The government statement issued at the time and published in the The Times on 1st April 1974 confirmed that. Those who claim that actual county boundaries were moved refuse to cite any source for that claim, which is not surprising because there isn't any. All we get is a reference to "Wikipedia guidelines," where I see that in the past those who have tried to put forward the correct version have been met with similar resistance by those who seem to want to propagate the misinformation that current bureaucratic administrative boundaries are the only thing relevant. 87.112.142.201 (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Heard it all before, more than once. Unnamed officials, off-the-cuff remarks taken out of context, postal counties, etc etc. Take it to UKGEO. Again. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

From the opening of the Local Govt. Act: "An Act to make provision with respect to local government and the functions of local authorities in England and Wales." Then in the first section: "New local government areas in England. (1) For the administration of local government on and after 1st April 1974 England (exclusive of Greater London and the Isles of Scilly) shall be divided into local government areas to be known as counties and in those counties there shall be local government areas to be known as districts."

The official govt. statement issued at the time: "The new county boundaries are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change despite the different names adopted by the new administrative counties."

I can only assume that those who continue to ignore all the evidence and continue to make claims which they cannot substantiate, while quoting their own policy as if that is supposed to "prove" their point, must be complicit in the agenda to eradicate the true history. I don't doubt that some are local authority bureaucrats themselves, only interested in their own little bureaucratic empires. I only hope that those reading these articles looking for facts read the talk pages as well and investigate properly to see what is going on. 87.112.142.201 (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Shall we have this same argument on the article for every village in the Vale of White Horse? Even if you're right, the place to debate this is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties, not here. I refer you to WP:UKCOUNTIES, WP:FRINGE, WP:SPA and WP:ADVOCACY. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me it should be on every page for a place which has the county incorrectly listed by those who are seem hellbent on destroying our heritage. Long may those who are trying to set the record straight continue.

91.125.191.49 (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Leisure and Media

The portions regarding the current and future redevelopments of the town need a bit of rewriting to make them flow better... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.45.41 (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

School Information

I just added some information about Abingdon School. I debated making a seperate page all about Abingdon School, and I want your opinion as to whether this is preferable to the link to the existing site. I can easily collect a lot of data about the school, the history and so on and so forth and build up a really top-notch page.

---

Have put administrative county before historical county, as Oxfordshire is of more contemporary relevance than Berkshire

Obviously it is a town with a lot of history, but nonetheless I think that the article as a whole could do with some editing to put more focus on the present-day, if anyone has the time/inclination/knowledge to do this.

--Trainspotter 16:48, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

P.S. regarding the school: whether it warrants a separate page really depends on the volume of material -- whether it would otherwise dominate this page or not. I think that with any page regarding the school it is an effort to preserve neutrality and not just read like publicity for the school. But if you can achieve that, I agree that it could make a great article.

--Trainspotter 16:53, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For completeness, there is now a long-standing article at Abingdon School. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

External links

Could everyone working on this page please have a look at WP:EL. Are some of these sites reference material used to write the article? I feel some of them may be there just to promote the websites, or as a list of all the websites folks could find about Abingdon. Billlion 10:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move - primary usage not established. JPG-GR (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Abingdon, Oxfordshire → Abingdon — First, largest, and most important town with this name. Also the location of the famous Abingdon School and one of the oldest English towns with a valley fort dating to the Iron Age. —71.106.183.124 (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - As nominator 71.106.183.124 (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with your comments about it being the "First, largest, and most important town with this name." TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - It is the most significant instance of the name. For the record it may now be in Oxfordshire, but for most of its existence was the county town of Berkshire and so the suffix could be considered misleading. Motmit (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. First and largest are not replacements for primary usage. Simply too many uses. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Of the eight other places listed, four are currently redlinks, and one is a redirect, leaving three USA towns that do not seem to be as exceptional. There is a strong likelyhood, but this might need to be investigated, that all these places were named after the original Abingdon in which case precedence is itself important. There is no reason why the original Abingdon article should not have a hat note redirecting to an equivalent disambig page.Motmit (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Checking "What Links Here", there are very few links on non-town items (apart from a 2005 Japanese band with a full name "Abingdon Boys School") so these can be ignored. Of the towns Illinois has 58 links, Maryland 35 and only Virginia is comparable to the original Abingdon which has 353. However these figures are distorted by general templates - that for Virginia has over 220 links on it whereas the original Abingdon's has only 22. Excluding these gives Oxfordshire 331 to Virginia 139. Looking at other language Wikis, Oxfordshire has 16 links to Virginia 4. I think that is a strong case for "primary". My previous comment should not be read as making any implication that Abingdon Virginia is not exceptional - simply that it is not as exceptional as its namesake. Motmit (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually your numers clearly show that Abingdon, Oxfordshire is not the primary use. It is not a game of simply showing that one article has more links then another and ignoring additional articles. It really is to see if there is a clear primary use and in this case that is not the case. You also ruled out Abingdon Boys School. Can you say without a doubt that no one commonly calls the band Abingdon? I could also probably make a case that Abingdon School may be as notable as the town. Bottom line is that there is no primary use shown. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The importance of the town is outlined with the Iron Age fort and the school. Given that other uses don't give much of a higher importance, Abingdon makes a strong case for primary usage. 71.106.183.124 (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New request of resolving the town name

I've seen that there was a discussion about changing Abingdon, Oxfordshire to Abingdon. Now my request is to discuss about the title of Abingdon-on-Thames. The reason is the Google Earth currently mapping the major town name and the related pictures from Panoramio and wikipedia infomation. Apparently Abingdon could not get the link, and I assume that is because of the name difference between the Wiki and the general town name referred by Google Earth. It is better to request the change on either the Google Earth name or the Wikipedia reference name. SSANight (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand any of this. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism? What is "Washington and lived ha ha aha ha ha ha ha i need help i dont know any thing" doing in External links. I tried to edit it out but couldn't see the source. 91.84.84.225 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

County

The claim that Abingdon is (still) in Berkshire is eccentric at best. It's in the Vale of the White Horse district, which is in Oxfordshire. The Ordnance Survey map shows it in Oxfordshire. Any current reference you care to consult will tell you it's in Oxfordshire, and has been since 1974. Much as you might wish it otherwise, suggesting that Abingdon is in Berkshire is not a neutral point of view. Reverted (again) until you find a citation that supports your point of view. (Not that it makes any difference, but I lived there for 15 years on and off.) Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The boundary change was for administrative purposes ONLY. Look at the Local Government Act 1972. The title states it is "An Act to make provision with respect to local government and the functions of local authorities in England and Wales." The first part is headed "New local government areas in England," then continues with "For the administration of local government on and after 1st April 1974 England (exclusive of Greater London and the Isles of Scilly) shall be divided into local government areas to be known as counties and in those counties there shall be local government areas to be known as districts." The confusion has arisen because this act created administrative areas and chose to call them counties as well, in conflict with existing counties.

A government spokesman was quoted in The Times for 1st April 1974 as confirming that the boundary changes were for defining administrative local government areas only, and "will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties."

This has been confirmed by various other statements from govt. officials in more recent years, for example:

"I can confirm that the Government still stand by this statement, that the local authority areas and boundaries introduced in April 1974 do not alter the traditional boundaries of counties." - Michael Portillo, Minister of State for Local Government, 11th July 1990

"I can confirm that these Acts (1933, 1972) did not specifically abolish traditional counties, so traditional counties still exist but no longer for the purposes of the administration of local Government...." - Statrment issued by Dept. for Communities & Local Govt., August 2006

Why the Ordnance Survey choses to indicate government administrative areas instead of the real counties is something of a mystery, but the 1972 legislation makes it clear that it was not decreeing that actual county boundaries would move, only the boundaries of the areas administered by various local authorities. 87.115.56.207 (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, and I've learnt something about traditional counties. However, having checked for a formal Wikipedia guideline, WP:UKCOUNTIES says very clearly and unambiguously: "In respect of England, Scotland and Wales, a fundamental part of this guide is to reaffirm the long established policy that we do not take the minority view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries." For that reason, I'm going to revert the article again and I suggest that if you still object, you take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. Even if the change to Berkshire could be justified, the rest of the article would need to change. For example, the infobox still says Oxfordshire, and shows a map of Oxfordshire; and the second and third sentences of the lead would also need to change (saying in the first sentence that Abingdon is in Berkshire and then two sentences later that it was part of Berkshire introduces confusion and inconsistency). Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Owain for this compromise: "Historically the county town of Berkshire, since 1974 it has been the seat of the Vale of White Horse district of Oxfordshire." Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know exactly who the "we" is in the "we do not take the minority view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries." I suspect it's a small group who established this Wikipedia guideline with the agenda of promoting the incorrect information which is put out by the various local authorities. The majority of people might have been successfully brainwashed into believing that the actual boundaries were moved by legal decree, since this is the impression conveyed by local government, and reinforced in many people's minds by such things as the Ordnance Survey maps showing administrative boundaries as you observed, and by the numerous "Welcome to ____shire" signs which have been erected by those local authorities at their own administrative boundaries. But that doesn't make the minority view incorrect per se. Quite often, a sign which says something like "Welcome to Oxfordshire" doesn't mean that one is entering Oxfordshire; it really means "You are entering the area which is administered by the local government body known as Oxfordshire County Council." The location of the TRUE county boundary has now been all but eradicated from most people's minds over time and because the local authorities are more concerned with asserting their own territorial claims than with facts.

I've noticed this trend throughout Wikipedia place articles for the U.K. Even where no dispute over the county exists, the opening remarks of many articles seem more concerned with which bureaucratic body administers the area than with anything else. I've even come across one in which the opening paragraph is full of details about which government statistical region with some obscure alphanumerical designation the place lies in for various purposes - Something which if worthy of mention at all belongs under a sub-heading somewhere and certainly not in the lead. But it does reinforce my belief that the guidelines for writing about places seem to have been infiltrated with local authority types who are more concerned with promoting their own bureaucracies than with anything else. 87.115.163.24 (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is the policy. I was involved in the "debate" about describing the counties versus the administrative areas in the lead paragraph which was a fait accompli. There were several concessions graciously granted — namely a field into the infobox for "Historic county" and the allowed wording "Historically part of..." or "within the historic boundaries of", but it didn't take long for a redesign of the infobox to drop the historic county field, and certain editors have been known to revert the "allowed" wording. Until the policy changes a pragmatic approach needs to be adopted. I think my compromise wording is the best that can be done within the current framework. Owain (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I was involved in the "debate" about describing the counties versus the administrative areas in the lead paragraph which was a fait accompli. I dispute that. I've never been involved in, or even aware of, the debate before now—though I support the use of current administrative counties as the most practical solution to a difficult problem—but I note that, for example, a vote was taken in 2004 and the result was 12:2 in favour of administrative counties.[1] Just because you lose an argument doesn't mean it's a fait accompli. That said, I don't have a problem with the compromise wording. (For the record, I'm nothing to do with any of the the administrative bodies concerned.) Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)