Jump to content

Talk:Bedfordshire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Luton is still in Bedfordshire, and Milton Keynes is still in Buckinghamshire – unitary local authorities are complementary to the system of counties, they do not replace them entirely. M-Henry 16:33, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please see http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19951776_en_2.htm, which contains the magic words "Luton shall cease to form part of Bedfordshire", and "A new county shall be constituted comprising the area of Luton and shall be named the county of Luton." Morwen 12:36, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but see the schedule [1] to the Lieutenancies Act 1997, where we read "County for the purposes of this Act – Bedfordshire: Local government areas – Bedfordshire and Luton".--Keith Edkins 11:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A lot of people seem to be confused by this, and insist that this county or that county was abolished, that a county boundary was moved, etc. In fact there has never been any official decree that any traditional county boundary has changed. The Local Government Act 1972 redefined ONLY administrative boundaries for the purposes of local government administration. It in no way sought to change actual county boundaries, and this has been confirmed by government statements to that effect on several occasions. So regardless of what local government changes have taken place over the years, Luton is still in Bedfordshire, the largest part of Slough is still in Buckinghamshire, Bournemouth is still in Hampshire, and so on. 87.115.207.212 (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Wiwaxia, AFAIK Studham Common is just the common land to the south east of Studham not a village.

County motto

[edit]

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)

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)
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)[reply]

etymology

[edit]

Bedanfordscir surely means more than Beda's ford. Isn't that the origin of Bedford?

Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

[edit]

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)[reply]

pronunciation

[edit]

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)[reply]

Announcement: The 2009 Structural Changes in Local Government in England: A Taskforce

[edit]
  1. 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.
  2. The changes will necessitate a large number of changes to various articles on wikipedia.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. The name of the taskforce is Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force or WP:2009ENGLAND.
  6. 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) (on behalf of the taskforce)[reply]

County flag and motto

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Groups are incorrect as of 2011 census data

[edit]

2011 Census lists the broad ethnic classifications as follows:

White: Total 75.5% Asian/Asian British: Total 13.87% Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: Total 4.83%

My guess is that the figures have not been updated for some time or have been using out of date information.

In fact going further the 2001 Census data lists the following:

White 86.33% Asian/Asian British 8.33% Black/Black British 2.94%

Which funnily enough is in line with the article.

In conclusion, the article should be updated with the 2011 figures.

Notable people

[edit]

Ddstretch: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notable people from Bedfordshire

[edit]

The names on this list should not occur in the article as a simple list. See WP:UKCOUNTIES and other possible solutions, such as in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, or Lancashire.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity in infobox

[edit]

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)[reply]

(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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, it's better not to have the data at all, than include misleading figures. Rupples (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calculations

[edit]

I have put together a calculation of the figures for Bedfordshire. Here is my working.

Sources:

  • UK Census (2021). "2021 Census Area Profile – Bedford UA (E06000055)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics.
  • UK Census (2021). "2021 Census Area Profile – Central Bedfordshire UA (E06000056)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics.
  • UK Census (2021). "2021 Census Area Profile – Luton UA (E06000032)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bedfordshire&oldid=1194078873"