Talk:Newport Hundred

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

HQ of Newport Hundred at Gayhurst[edit]

Really? Surely it was Newport Pagnell. Citation please. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A subsequent edit now says that the court leet of Buckingham Hundred was held a Gayhurst (and NP). Surely this is an error! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name of this article[edit]

Why is this article not called Newport Hundred (Buckinghamshire)? VCH uses the term 'Newport Hundred' (and Winslow Hundred, Buckingham Hundred, etc etc) and this is the style widely used in history and archaeology books. Why invent a different notation? If it is to disambiguate 'Newport', then I suggest that it is a false prospectus. AFIK, the Hundreds are always given as a word pair: 'X Hundred', 'Y Hundred', never as simply X and Y. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The standard naming that has developed for hundreds is just name where possible i.e. Ossulstone. This follows the normal WP naming guidelines for places. Where this is not possible Elthorne (hundred) is used. If there have been more than one hundred with the same name in different counties Blackheath, Kent (hundred) / Blackheath, Surrey (hundred) is used.

As for the underlying convention, Hundred of X format is often just as common in sources as X Hundred, so I can understand why the neutral X (hundred) was adopted. MRSC (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As in "the three hundreds of Newport". Touché. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Newport Hundred. 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/20090823202230/http://met.open.ac.uk/genuki/big/eng/BKM/hundreds/hhundreds.html to http://met.open.ac.uk/genuki/big/eng/BKM/hundreds/hhundreds.html

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 00:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]