Talk:Berkshire

Notable People
Isn't there a better photo of the Princess of Wales that can be used here? This one looks heavily edited and full (really full!) of artefacts. 203.23.239.198 (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Historic county boundary
@Acapital I think we need to discuss the final part of the second lead paragraph, which describes the historic county boundaries. The original version was:

'' 'The River Thames formed the historic northern boundary, from Buscot in the west to Old Windsor in the east. The historic county, therefore, includes territory that is now administered by the Vale of White Horse and parts of South Oxfordshire in Oxfordshire, but excludes Caversham, Slough and five less populous settlements in the east of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.'''

After a bit of back-and-forth this became (if you'll allow me to correct the Caversham/Berkshire mistake):

 'The county historically included the part of Oxfordshire south of the Thames, principally the district of Vale of White Horse, and did not include Slough or Caversham.'

I think this captures the essentials: the historic northern boundary was the Thames, and Slough and Caversham were not part of it. The rest can be covered in the body. It's succinct, and appropriate for the lead. Why don't you like it? A.D.Hope (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I have edited this paragraph to roughly the same length you proposed now. This is now succinct, accurate and gets rid of the waffle about the individual settlements. The wording that uses “historically” is inconsistent with other Wikipedia county pages. Yorkshire’s page says it is a historic county. The historic counties are separate entities to the ceremonial counties, as the Yorkshire page correctly makes clear. In the case of Berkshire, my wording makes it clear that the historic county boundaries to the north follow that of the Thames (ie not historically). I think the current phrasing is a compromise, would you agree? Acapital (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're a good writer, but I do think the current wording is a bit clumsy — if the northern boundary was the Thames then it follows that the parts of Oxfordshire south of the Thames was formerly part of Berkshire, so it doesn't really need stating twice.
 * An issue we're not going to resolve here is that the WP:UKCOUNTIES guidelines 'do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries.' Quite honestly I don't think the rule reflects the current situation, but for the sake of consistency I use the past tense when writing about historic boundaries and so would prefer it if this article's lead did as well. 'Yorkshire' is a bit of an odd one as it's an article specifically about an historic county, but most historic counties don't have their own articles and are instead covered within the appropriate contemporary county article. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not everyone will know that Oxfordshire is north of Berkshire though, so it is appropriate to say Berkshire’s north boundary is the Thames, and the parts of Oxfordshire south of the river are in the historic county of Berkshire. It’s better to use this geographical boundary to describe the area, rather than saying the Vale of White Horse and parts of South Oxfordshire district are in the historic county of Berkshire. It’s currently worded clearly, as well as succinctly. Moreover, the two sentences currently flow in a cohesive manner.
 * I agree that there is inconsistency. I think that to ensure consistency, every historic county should have a separate page just like the situation that Yorkshire does. It will also allow historic county flags to be correctly placed. If that is not allowed due to the policies on Wikipedia, then the Yorkshire page should be removed. Why should Yorkshire get special treatment? All counties should be treated the same to ensure consistency. Acapital (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the article states that Berkshire is bordered to the north by Oxfordshire, so everyone who reads the article should be aware of this fact, and the Thames is mentioned in both my version and your version of the passage, so the geographical information is included too. I don't agree that the two current sentences flow together well, as they restate the same fact in two different ways.
 * This is a little off-topic, but Yorkshire has a separate page (I assume) because there is no appropriate contemporary county page in which to cover it. Sussex, Middlesex, and the Isle of Ely are similar examples. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean this is becoming very nit-picky. The current wording is essential to state the historic county is bound to the north by the Thames. Done. The second sentence states the historic county therefore includes Oxfordshire south of the Thames, but excludes Slough and Caversham. As there are differences to both the north and south of the Thames (ie Slough is north, yet Abingdon/Didcot etc are south), the second sentence is necessary. The two sentences work together to make a whole picture, not needing the reader to investigate the text to piece together what is north and south of the Thames. And the current wording is not even adding much length to the article at all! It’s certainly a compromise as it is.
 * You also raise a good point regarding the other counties. Why are some counties allowed to have separate pages describing the historic counties in their entirety, but places like Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire are pumped into the pages for the ceremonial counties? The latter three counties should have separate pages for the historic counties as they have the same status (existing as historic counties) as Yorkshire. Acapital (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've played around with a few forms of words to try and find a compromise, but I still think my version is the most succinct way of explaining the historic extent of the county. I don't agree that it's essential to explicitly state that the Thames was the historic northern boundary. Maybe a third opinion would be the quickest way to settle the matter?
 * Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, and Oxfordshire don't have historic county articles because their histories are covered within the contemporary county articles. Yorkshire has one, I'd guess, because four contemporary counties cover its area and so it's not obvious where the historic Yorkshire topics should go. If you want to discuss that approach I think you'd be best off raising it at WP:UKGEO —the historic counties are a bit of a recurring topic, however, so the editors there might not be too enthusiastic. That's not to put you off, just brace yourself! A.D.Hope (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you think of my latest attempt? A.D.Hope (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it’s pretty good actually! Thanks for checking :) Acapital (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)