Talk:Oxfordshire

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

UK geography High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. England High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Geography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

So Christmas Common and Cowley are major towns in Oxfordshire, but Oxford isn't. How quaint. -- Chris j wood 18:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've rationalised the list; removed all the places which don't have an entry in the List of towns in England; added Oxford. -- Chris j wood 19:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oxford is a city, not a town. Jim Michael (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional county info belongs in the History of Oxfordshire as it is no longer current. There is a debate about this view. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)#Trad counties of England infoboxes. --Concrete Cowboy 09:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. The traditional county is perfectly 'current'. When was it abolished? Don't forget on Wikipedia you need to Cite your sources. If you have no evidence of its abolition it needs to be returned to the main Oxfordshire page. Owain 10:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has no current practical effect. It of historic interest, just as are the Anglo-Saxon Hundreds. Their importance in the right context is not in dispute. In the main article, they are clutter that takes up too much space that could better be used for current or recent photographs. In the unlikely event that anybody but you cares as deeply about the subject, then see the article referred above for the generic discussion, since it is not unique to Oxfordshire. --Concrete Cowboy 11:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Practical evidence includes that government statement ""The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of ... local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties".

The practical effect of their existence includes the fact that the government issued this statement. I.e. it would not have been issued if they did not exist. Men have been executed on less evidence than that!

The right context is a seperate article. 80.255 12:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I said "practical effect" not "practical evidence". The Government says stuff like this to keep the Daily Moan happy, but it doesn't change the practical effect of their policies. I did not say that they don't exist: if you believe in them, then that's an existence of sorts. If the Government hasn't been foolish enough to formally abolish them, that's equally an existence. It just doesn't have any effect in day-to-day lives. But they are certainly of serious academic interest - indeed vital to anyone doing historical research. If you follow cricket, it's nice to be sure where your loyalties should lie.

As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem with a separate article if you want to write one and there should certainly be a link to it from the main article. For practical purposes, I'd take the convenient route of putting it the History of Oxfordshire since that is a logical home. --Concrete Cowboy 16:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy to write an Oxfordshire (traditional), and produce maps and other relevant information on the traditional county. It is the policy that is preventing me. The policy says that all information relating to any given county name should be in the same article, in this case Oxfordshire. This isn't my doing! If you want to suggest that the policy be changed in this respect, you will have my full support. 80.255 17:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These should be merged into this article as there is sufficient space for their inclusion. Netkinetic/T/C/@ 06:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to clear up the village pages in Oxfordshire(i'll start on Oxford and the towns eventually).

I've been sorting them all out, finding out information about transport links(buses trains), a bit about the location, anything recent, the amenities(schools, pubs, shops etc). also been visiting these villages to find out a bit of information from the locals.

can i get any advice on whether im going about it the rigth way?? for examples of my work...ummm....look at the new Coscote , Fulscotand West Hagbournepages. Any help with this cleanup project and renovation would be most apprecaited.--Halowithhorns89 16:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It states that Chipping Norton is nearby along with Bicester and Banbury, but no mention of Kidlington, which is much nearer and much bigger then Chipping Norton, almost a suburb of Oxford. 86.3.133.80 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South East of England, I always thought Oxfordshire was classed as the South Midlands? Am I wrong? 90.192.92.47 03:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The South Midlands is not a commonly used term. When used, it tends to not include Oxfordshire. Jim Michael (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think ‘south midlands’ is quite a common expression. But if Oxfordshire is in the south, surely it’s south central, rather than southeast. Zhnirlwaupp (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Thanks to a ginormous infobox this article looks like this:

Oxfordshire
(pronounced /
ˈɒksfərdʃər/ or /
ˈɒksfərdʃɪər/;
abbreviated Oxon,
from the Latinised
form Oxonia) is a
county in the South
East England region,
bordering on
Northamptonshire,
Buckinghamshire,
Berkshire, Wiltshire,
Gloucestershire, and
Warwickshire.

Please fix it. 82.139.86.4 (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise the population of Carterton probably changes as much as anywhere in Oxfordshire but does anyone know the population? It appears incorrectly in the population chart. Mattwinner (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A project to find out more about Oxfordshire's genetic makeup is being started by Oxfordshire Family History Society. Does anyone object to adding a link to it in the links section? The new project's webpage can be found here:-

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/oxfordshire/default.aspx

and the Oxfordshire Family History Society's webpage here

http://www.ofhs.org.uk/ Oxonblood (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi—my take would be that it would probably fall foul of Wikipedia's policy on external links: "one should generally avoid providing external links to....Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article...a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." I take that to mean that only websites that deal with Oxfordshire in general (rather than one aspect of Oxfordshire) should be added to the External Links section—so the link you added to Genetic history of the British Isles is probably legitimate since it is relevant to the topic in its entirety, but this article is about Oxfordshire in general, not the genetic makeup of its occupants. The only way to justify a link would be if the project was sufficiently notable to warrant a mention in the main body of the article (in which case you could reference it with a link to the project website) but I suspect that it would not be considered sufficiently noteworthy until you have some results (and even then, History of Oxfordshire might be a better place to describe the project's findings). Sounds like an interesting project though, and I wish you luck with it.Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thanks. Fair points. How about I add brief details of settlement/peopling to the History of Oxfordshire section and a link to the Oxon archives and FHS and leaving the DNA project until it has more results? Oxonblood (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article needs more photos. Since it's short and there's really not enough room for enough pictures to sum up a county along the sides, I think adding a gallery might be good.

Any thoughts or suggested images? What I tried to do for the Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire pages, which do have enough length for plenty of good pictures, was try to provide a diverse range of images, not just traditional tourist sites but also typical local housing, offices of major companies based in the area, countryside views and so on. Blythwood (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel strongly either way, but WP:Gallery has some relevant things to say (e.g. "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery..."). Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oxfordshire. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150221084717/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RegionalGVA.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RegionalGVA.pdf

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

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The flag listed in the infobox is a commercially available one supported by neither Oxfordshire County Council nor any official sources. The proposed flag would be more applicable. The use of a commercially available flag rather than the officially supported one (or fairer, none at all) misleads the viewer into beleiving it the offical county flag, and henceforth endows an unfair commercial interest on the manufacturer of the unsupported, unofficial flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.87.118 (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the official status of the flag, but I do note that there is some evidence given of its official use on the media page at commons:County_Flag_of_Oxfordshire.svg. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that the flag currently listed as the flag of oxforshire has no official status; it has not been registered with the Flag Institute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.87.118 (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Dave.Dunford for reference. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are englishman, but not everyone knows where the hell is "Oxfordshire (/ˈɒksfərdʃər/ or /-ʃɪər/; abbreviated Oxon) is a county in South East England bordering on Warwickshire (to the north/north-west), Northamptonshire (to the north/north-east), Buckinghamshire (to the east), Berkshire (to the south), Wiltshire (to the south-west) and Gloucestershire (to the west)." There is no country mentioned and this is international wikipedia. >Typ932 ^T·C 18:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Most people know that England is part of the United Kingdom. And the change you made is not grammatical in standard English, I'm afraid. Dave.Dunford (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Typ932: I've edited the opening of the Oxfordshire article to indicate that the county is both in South East England and the United Kingdom, in case there's anyone out there that doesn't know that England is part of the United Kingdom. But I've just looked at four other English county articles, selected randomly (Gloucestershire, Essex, Cumbria and Cornwall) and their opening sentences all mention England (or an English region) rather than the United Kingdom, so I suspect someone else may revert. Dave.Dunford (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes most people know where is England, but there is no mention of it, only South East England which may be some other place in some other country, lots of people dont know where is that South East England, and you dont know that before you click that wikipedia link >Typ932 ^T·C 18:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related to #England above, this issue has arisen again, this time at talk:Oxford#East-West. Wikipedia doesn't work on "everybody knows" or "we don't live in Kent", but on what wp:reliable sources say. And, as defined by the Office of National Statistics, Oxon is enumerated in the South East Region. The body could say "south central England" but the infobox still has to say "South East". IMO. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Country parks.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Country parks.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a project for missing civil parishes at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. The missing parishes in Oxfordshire are:

• Heyford Park

And these exists as a redirect only but should have separate articles:

• Lockinge

A total of 2, see User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes (3)#Oxfordshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the recent proposal to split off this section of the article. Its already pretty much covered by List of civil parishes in Oxfordshire. Maybe wait til the 2021 census results to see if they give another definition for settlements Eopsid (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if we could see an actual justification, we could consider it on its merits. Greyzxq, is this one of yours? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I have proposed that this section be moved into it's own article is so it follows the rest of the articles in Category:United Kingdom lists by population. I believe it is the only county missing, as well as Buckinghamshire, so it doesn't make much sense for just these two counties to not have a list. Greyzxq (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:A.D.Hope what's clearer?

a) Oxfordshire contains five districts, which are part of a two-tier non-metropolitan county also called Oxfordshire, or

b) Oxfordshire has a county council and five district councils. Rupples (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse my butting in but IMO, none of the above. The lead of Oxfordshire should not get bogged down in that level of detail. All it needs to say is that The county is administered by Oxfordshire County Council. The levels below that belong in the administration section of the body, not in the lead. WP:Think of the reader. (Strangely, the OCC article doesn't even mention the Districts or their councils!) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I 100% agree, there's no need for that information in the lead. WaggersTALK 12:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. Would consensus here be trumped by a consensus to include more detail at the WP:UKGEO discussion? Is there a Wiki discussion hierarchy? Rupples (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, the WP:UKGEO consensus would override this one per WP:CONLEVEL. WaggersTALK 14:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be subcategories within WikiProject England for most counties, but not for Oxfordshire. Anyone know why this might be, or is it just a case of nobody having started one? I for one would be happy to join and contribute. Others? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a proposal (Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Oxfordshire) which gained quite a bit of support but it didn't actually get started. In that discussion it was pointed out that a lot of county-level projects struggle in terms of engagement and activity. Certainly that's true of the other county level projects in the South East region - but being able to break down things like assessment stats, alerts, discussions etc. to county level is still useful in my opinion (see WP:HANTS for example).

So I'd still be happy to support a WikiProject Oxfordshire, but I'm also open to consolidating into a WikiProject South East England to cover the same area as P:SEE. WaggersTALK 15:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Waggers. I wasn't aware of such a formal mechanism for proposing new projects, or that Oxon had been proposed. Also didn't realise that so many county projects are inactive. Broadening the scope to either SEE, as you mention, or to Oxon/Bucks/Berks as suggested in that proposal, could make sense. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]