Talk:Hertfordshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedians[edit]

Note to editors of Hertfordshire: If you happen to live in Hertfordshire, consider adding [[Category:Wikipedians in Hertfordshire]] to your user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki alf (talkcontribs) 11:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Nickname[edit]

Whoever wrote this, i have never heard of 'Hertfordshire Hedgehog' or 'Hertfordshire Hayabout' or related. It must not be very widely used. How common is this? Simply south 20:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd never heard the term before (despite having grown up in Hertfordshire). I did the following search on google.
  • "Hertfordshire Hedgehogs" (with quotes): 12 matches
  • "Hertfordshire Hedgehog": 49 matches
  • "Hertfordshire Hayabouts": 3 matches (about a variety of beer)
  • "Hertfordshire Hayabout": 0 matches
So it's obviously not a commonly used term nowadays.
This page talks about people of northern Herts being known as Hertfordshire Hedgehogs.
This page (from cheshirelife.co.uk) states "The term Hertfordshire Hedgehog has long been associated with this county, writes Doris Jones-Baker in her book, Tales of Old Hertfordshire" and it also says "Hertfordshire farm boys were called Hayabouts".
So... there is a little evidence that the phrases exist, but little of it is substantial. --David Edgar 07:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
"i have never heard... It must not be very widely used". Hmmm. I have heard Hertfordshire Hedgehog so it must be used ALL OVER the place. Icundell 19:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Strange, i am from here... and i have never heard it Simply south 19:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not strange - it just means you have never come across it. Here you go: a link to a Herts magazine using it. I'd never hears hayabout though. Icundell 01:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I've heard "Hertfordshire hedgehog" from an old codger in a pub.--S Marshall (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
My parents are from Hertfordshire and I remember the hedgehogs being mentioned quite a lot. I think little figurines of them used to be sold in giftshops, although I haven't the first clue as to why. Sky83 (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Places of Interest in Hertfordshire[edit]

I have attempted to create a page on this to list all of the places possible to visit in Hertfordshire. This is nowhere near complete and so far has been copied from the main page. It has been sorted out into the letters of the alphabet. Please can this be reviewed and people add to the article. Basically it should be places that people can visit for example, museums, landmarks etc. It does not depend on size. Simply south 18:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, if slightly sparse at the moment! I've added one and I'm all out of ideas. RicDod 18:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hundreds[edit]

The article says "The Domesday Book recorded the county as having nine hundreds. Tring and Danais became one, Dacorum. The other seven were Broadwater, Cashio, Edwinstree, Hertford, Hitchin and Odsey." Does this mean that Tring and Danais were two of the nine, or was Dacorum one of the nine? What was the other one - or two? Braughing perhaps? DaveRo 08:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I took it to mean Tring and Danais merged to form Dacorum after the Domesday Book. Icundell 10:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I conclude that too, and that only one is missing - Braughing. I will edit. DaveRo 11:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice?[edit]

Wouldn't it be useful to include something mentioning p&p?

If you mean about the setting supposedly being based on Hertford, I believe that there is a mention of that on the Hertford article.Sky83 (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnet[edit]

Okay, what is going on? Barnet is still part of Hertfordshire, the administration of Barnet just joins London. Someone please explain why they haven't included Barnet? Govvy 11:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the London Government Act 1963 removed Barnet and East Barnet from Herts while adding Potters Bar to it. MRSCTalk 21:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
People however living in Barnet and surrounding suburbs still have the address to Hertfordshire. How comes? Simply south 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Greater London was not adopted as a postal county. MRSCTalk 07:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The Land Registration Office says differently. Chipping Barnet still comes under Hertfordshire. Govvy 09:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Registration counties are unfortunately a whole other system. They don't 'make' places part of one county or another. MRSCTalk 15:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Project[edit]

Currently, a proposal is up for a wikiProject on this county. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Hertfordshire.

(above added sometime before)

Or my user sub-page at User:Simply south/WPHerts.

Simply south 17:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation[edit]

Is the ford really pronounced with the vowel of foot? kwami (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just change it to what I guess it might be. If I'm wrong, please correct. kwami (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It is pronounced Hart-ford(as in foot)-sher\Hart-ford(as in foot)-sheer. Simply south (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I was going by the sound recording, but it's always tricky transcribing a dialect you're not familiar with. kwami (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Economy[edit]

"..a number of industrial losses as companies capitalise on land values and move to regions where land is cheaper and recruitment is easier. Examples include ... Lucas (also Hemel). "

As I understand it Lucas (as TRW Aeronautical Systems) moved from Hemel to Pitstone in 2002. (I put this in the Lucas Industries plc#Rotax article but some helpful type deleted it because the company was no longer called Lucas when it moved..) Yes they moved out of the county, but only by about 1 mile.. Pterre (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Place of Interest[edit]

I think this article could do with a section like Oxfordshire#Places of interest. Govvy (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It had one. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Places of interest in Hertfordshire. Bazj (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's back. Kanguole (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Waterford, Hertfordshire[edit]

just added this page. Not very much as I live outside the UK so can't pop round there to do research and there is little on the web. But a village with such a notable church had to be included. Can anyone improve it? ThanksRoundtheworld (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation (again)[edit]

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:IPA for English#Hertfordshire. Joining the discussion is preferable to joining the edit-war. Regards, Bazj (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We had the comment "It is pronounced Hart-ford(as in foot)-sher\Hart-ford(as in foot)-sheer" above. Should we add a local pronunciation of [ˈhɑːtfʊtʃə]? Is that what was meant? kwami (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

the listen .ogg file[edit]

Needs replacing with an older more mature voice if you ask me!! Sounds very kid and young. Would make it more professional anyway! Govvy (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The one I'm listening to has a female voice, but the problem is the sound cuts off suddenly and makes it sound like it ends with a glottal stop. 92.15.212.78 (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Rail crashes and other disasters[edit]

Do these events really need to be included here? Surely, in the greater scheme of things, they are not so important to the history of the county? And there are pages on Wikipedia about these events. Roundtheworld (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OlympicWhiteWaterCoursePicture[edit]

We need a picture of the olympic whitewater course. Will somebody local set us up a picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.29.126 (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

In England![edit]

Several editors have tried to place Hertfordshire in England. I don't see this as controversial but one editor has changed it several times. Why is this article different from Durham or Hampshire or Herefordshire? 188.28.152.119 (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed it back to how it was before, WP:COMMONNAME. There does seem to be a standard layout across most articles, I don't why it's different on this one. Govvy (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The same editor seems determined to have his own way. I'll try again, perhaps he'll explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.152.119 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I have—in my edit summaries. Your maths need checking too –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 22:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
You have not explained, merely wished to keep the current state. You are of course wrong. 188.28.152.119 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
So if I say WP:COMMONNAME you arn't going to go by that? Then I checked a fair number of other shire articles, and they all more or less use England and don't use United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There should be some standard across the board. You can't just change things because you want too. And Hertfordshire is not in North Ireland, there is no relation, so it doesn't need to be used, it's a landlocked county in England. Using the full name of the Kingdom in that format seems wrong. Govvy (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Essex ... is a [Ceremonial counties of England|ceremonial] and administrative [Counties of England|county] in [England in the [United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|United Kingdom] and is the [home counties|home county] northeast of the city of [London]. It borders the counties of [Suffolk] and [Cambridgeshire] to the north, [Hertfordshire] to the west, ... –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 23:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
A While back United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was changed to be just United Kingdom under the commonname as that was what people would type into wiki to get to that page. Even know on the main article the full title is still present but to avoid redirct on the Essex article might as well just direct to United Kingdom. Govvy (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Uh... "Even know on the main article the full title is still present but to avoid redirct on ..." What language is this? –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 03:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I just wanna say two things. Please stop edit warring :-) and you shouldn't go changing redirects unless they're actually broken (WP:NOTBROKEN). Oh yeah and a third. I don't think WP:COMMONNAME applies, because it's about naming articles, not stating whether a place is in England or the UK. –anemoneprojectors– 08:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The region and NUTS 2 area are too much detail for the lead, and make it difficult to read. England is fine, and saying the county is immediately to the north of Greater London would locate it well. Kanguole 12:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is very awkward and difficult to read. However, I made the edit because the statement that Herts is in South East England is factually incorrect when the words point to the page for the NUTS 1 region called "South East England". I should also mention that the idea of entirely omitting mention of England from the description seems absurd to me. (This was the case with Bedfordshire until the edit I made today.) Is there a standard policy regarding how counties are supposed to be described in these introductory sections? I notice that a lot of county pages already use the NUTS 1 level EU regions to define the location of a county, but does this stem from a site-wide policy, or is it just some editors seizing upon these statistical units and giving them greater significance than they perhaps should have? Dubmill (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that any policy was discussed how to start the first sentence in the artiles, but they mostly seem consistant. I think it is good to have consistancy, It should be easier to maintain the articles that way and be in a format that makes up good encyclopedia work. Govvy (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kanguole - the whole last sentence should go really. Or move somewhere else. It's not stuff that should be in the lead. Same goes for the Bedfordshire article. Mato (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Notable residents ?[edit]

What's the point of that on the article? There is a huge list of notables and yet, the one present is ... not needed. You don't have that for London! I don't think any notable list or section is not needed on the article for an expanse such as Hertfordshire. Can we remove it? Govvy (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have thought the section inadequate and inappropriate for Hertfordshire since my first reading the article. I support its removal forthwith –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 11:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
"Notable people" sections are common in county articles, and mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. London is as usual a special case, but London borough articles also typically have such sections. Kanguole 11:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
My opinion is that there are so many notable people from the entire county that the list would be too big for them all. Best to list them in individual towns/villages/parishes/city. –anemoneprojectors– 17:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Much better idea –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 07:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
That's what I ment to say, notables should be more accurate to where they live, born, I don't think county pages need such lists. Govvy (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation (yet again)[edit]

Should definitely start "hɑr", contain "t", then probably "fəd", and end "ʃɪər" and "ʃər" (or is it "ʃə"?). (Though my other half will always argue that it should be "ʃaɪər"!) Please discuss :-) –anemoneprojectors– 20:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Concur. I would say your "middle" option, "ʃɪər". — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 21:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I've lived in Hertfordshire my whole life and I hear both "ʃɪər" and "ʃər", locally and on TV, though "ʃɪər" seems a lot more common. –anemoneprojectors– 21:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hertfordshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hertfordshire, Eastern England[edit]

Some editors seem to think Hertfordshire is in southern England, when it is not. It is officially part of Eastern England. So it seems now we are defining borders and regions of the UK by where they appear to be. Hull looks like its in the north east of England, so shall we say it is? No, because it's in Yorkshire and the humber. Nuneaton looks like its in the eastern part of the midlands, so shall we say it is here? No, we couldn't possibly, because its in the West Midlands of course. The thing is, you have to go by proper borders because it is like having a war between which place is in which region, if you don't follow borders then everyone's map of the UK looks different, and therefore it is imperative there will be arguments as to which region a place is in. This article should say Hertfordshire is in the East of England, otherwise it's wrong, and you could argue that it is in either. Stick to the official regions and the problem is solved--2A02:C7F:C802:4000:4D1C:C33C:E0DE:F85A (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Why are you comparing a county with towns? You make no sense at all. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  09:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I've got a question for you, '2A02...': what part of England is London in? I assume you must agree that London is in England, so whereabouts is it? Dubmill (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

London is in the London and South-east England region, so south-east England or southern England is appropriate. Also, I knew you were going to say that about comparing it with towns. It doesn't matter. Lets say Somerset is in Western England, well then no its in the south-west. If your going to say Herts is in Southern England, then why isn't Somerset also southern England?

NORTHERN ENGLAND - COMBINES NORTH EAST, YORKSHIRE AND HUMBER AND NORTH WEST ENGLAND

SOUTHERN ENGLAND - COMBINES LONDON AND SOUTH EAST AND SOUTH WEST ENGLAND

EASTERN ENGLAND - EAST OF ENGLAND ONLY

THE MIDLANDS - WEST AND EAST MIDLANDS

WESTERN ENGLAND - NON EXISTENT

generally however, an article should use the correct region and be specific rather than use simply southern England.2A02:C7F:C802:4000:59E:16EA:2F31:FFC (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Somerset is in southern England, but south-west England would be more specific.
I think the problem with Hertfordshire is that including it in 'East of England' may work for statistical purposes but it's geographically counterintuitive. The county, especially the western part of it, is just a bit too far west for that classification to make sense when viewed on the map. I think it's an anomaly. Another thing is the history. I think I am correct in saying that Hertfordshire was part of Mercia, so quite distinct from the areas to the east (Essex and East Anglia). So that makes 'East of England' both geographically and historically counterintuitive. I still maintain that a vague description ('southern England') is more suitable in this case than using the statistical region. In fact I would go further and say there should be no blanket policy of using the government regions to describe the geographical locality of places. The region should of course be mentioned, and in many cases it would be perfectly satisfactory as a geographical identification, but it should not be used as the sole descriptor in anomalous cases where it confuses the reader. Dubmill (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

So the county a place is in HAS to be correct, whereas the region can be chosen, that makes no sense at all2A02:C7F:C802:4000:3959:6240:B401:62F1 (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

In addition, Bedfordshire is stated as the East of England in the article2A02:C7F:C802:4000:3959:6240:B401:62F1 (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't be bothered arguing with you any more. I've explained why I think a nuanced approach is better in this particular case than what you propose. This is because an anomaly results from Hertfordshire being placed in a grouping that it doesn't really belong to for both historical and geographical reasons. But at the very least, if you want a regimented system in which counties are strictly described by official statistical region, in this case it should say 'is a county in the East of England region of England'. It should NOT say 'is a county in the East of England'. Dubmill (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hertfordshire is in Southern England, it's also in the East of England region, but what it's not in is East Anglia. I've seen it sometimes placed in the East Midlands, which is definintely wrong. I don't think there's any need to change anything in the article's lead section, is there? I assume that's what this is about. anemoneprojectors 20:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)