| Revision as of 12:25, 14 June 2006 editLancsalot (talk | contribs)1,612 edits →Shaw and Crompton← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:54, 23 November 2015 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,139,118 edits →ArbCom elections are now open!: new section | ||
| (123 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == |
==Greetings== | ||
| Greetings! I saw the debate on ]. Pretty conclusive stuff, but still being dismissed by the vocal disbelievers. Of course "a policy exists..." so facts must not be allowed to get in the way! Pretty sad really, but to quote another oft-used phrase "consensus can change", as we've seen with the Royal Mail and their utter climb-down over Rutland. ] <small>(])</small> 20:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeed. ] went into full-on denial mode and ] is bizarrely still pretending that "ancient or geographical counties" were invented by ABC! The census reports could not be clearer that the "counties proper" were unaffected by the creation of modern local government. Do you think we should take this to arbitration? ] (]) 11:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've just been reading some of your postings as well, having tried myself to correct articles and had the inevitable result of them being reverted almost immediately. But it seems as though at Misplaced Pages the "established guidelines" take precedence over facts, not to mention the rule about verifiable information being completely ignored by those with an agenda to try and eradicate knowledge of the real counties, since they cannot produce one single official source to support their claim (since none exists, of course). I certainly believe that the long-established editors of these particular pages are not exhibiting a neutral point-of-view themselves and have an agenda to support the local authorities in their attempts to push their current administrative boundaries. I would not be at all surprised if many of them are actually government bureaucrats themselves in some capacity (especially when looking at opening paragraphs of some place articles which are littered with descriptions of which government statistical region with an obscure alphanumeric designation the place lies within). At least we can hope that those with a deep enough interest will read the talk pages, look at the revision histories, and take the time go to the Assoc. of British Counties site and similar themselves to find the facts. -Paul (Born in Middlesex, in 1966). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| This user is a ] vandal. May be a Sockpuupet of ] or one of the other recationaries.--] 11:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The only vandal here is you - reverting useful information out of pages and accusing people of being sockpuppets. Please desist. ] <small>(])</small> 11:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :OK I realise that the fake/administrative counties have struggled to establish an identity but do you really think your obsessive vandalism is going to help? ] 13:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Welcome back== | |||
| ==Friends of Real Lancashire== | |||
| I notice you have returned to editing after a long break. Almost all of the edits you have made so far appear to have caused some level of conflict, as did your contributions before your departure. Please remember we are a project to write an encyclopedia and have a number of principles under which we operate. Our talk pages are for us to discuss article improvement, not to antagonise other editors or to put forward original research. To refresh your memory, here below is the welcome message given to all new editors: | |||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| I have left a long list of references and sourced material on the - would you be able to work the information into the article with citations in the next couple of days? It should then be in a good enough state to keep, otherwise the article may suffer a (in my opinion) undeserved deletion. I would do the job myself, but I am extremely busy in real-life at the moment, and you seem interested in the article given your recent edits! See you around, ]]] 12:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]{{#if:|, especially what you did for ]|}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| == Met Boroughs and Trad counties == | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> | |||
| Please take the time to read our principles thoroughly, so you will able to contribute more constructively to our project. ] • ] 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Quite a bit of what is now ] was in ] until ]. And much of ] was in ] until ]. It all depends what years you date your tradition from I suppose... (I'm not touching the infoboxes myself as I am not getting into the whole trad counties debate.) ] 14:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Feel free to add this info, my knowledge of the area is limited. The traditional county is a standard part of the infobox though so I don't think there's a debate about including this info. ] 15:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Have amended Sandwell accordingly. However I think Halesowen is considered to be part of Worcestershire rather than an exclave of Shropshire. ] 16:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == |
==Civility== | ||
| For the avoidance of doubt, is what is precluded by our principle of ]. ] • ] 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Notification of automated file description generation == | |||
| Re: - the ''central'' metropolitan councils were abolished then but the met counties still exists as the union of the councils of their constituent boroughs, which act as quasi-unitary authorities. | |||
| Your upload of ] or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page. | |||
| This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions ]. Thanks!<!--Template:Un-botfill--> ''Message delivered by ] (])'' 11:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| As for infobox labelling - traditional and ceremonial are not ideal. Traditional is not a well defined term; you only have to read the articles I've put together at ] and ] to see that. I'm going to propose changing these labels to Modern and pre-1974, or Modern and Ancient as compromises. More importantly, these have verifiable secondary use - the best online authority on these matters, uses these, whereas the phrase traditional county is used almost exclusively by the Association of British Counties and Misplaced Pages. I have not seen it used in scholarly or official contexts. ] 21:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :I think we have to look at the substance rather than the letter of the law here. The met counties were created solely for admin purposes. The fact that they no longer have any admin role (apart from Lord-Lieutenancy) means that to all intents and purposes they no longer exist. They are also no longer shown on OS maps and where they did form part of the postal address eg. Merseyside this is no longer the case. | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that the descriptors traditional and ceremonial are perfectly adequate and well understood. Traditional is the word used by the government in its comments on the matter. I'm not sure why you think the VoB website is the best authority on this - it's just a research project from one of the lesser universities and has no more official significance than the ABC website. The label pre-1974 in particular is totally inaccurate as the traditional counties still exist and are still widely used - the vast majority of people in towns such as Bolton would say they live in Lancashire not the defunct administrative county of Greater Manchester. ] 08:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692013717 --> | |||
| ::''they no longer have any admin role'': just not true. Bolton certainly isn't being administrated by Lancashire any more, is it? Each of the boroughs around Manchester/Birmingham/... has its own council; the collection of which forms the metropolitan county. They still retain several county-wide functions, such as emergency provision. | |||
| ::Remember - Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia of what is ] - and if our national statistics office still recognises met counties, e.g. , to all intents and purposes they exist in some sense. I have seen no equally ] which says metropolitan counties are defunct. | |||
| ::"Traditional" is occasionally used by the government, but nowhere near as much as "historic(al)" in this context; a simple Google search of Hansard backs this up. Historic is also the prevalent use in scholarly research into the matter. VoB may come from, in your view, "a lesser university", but it is the most widely and fully-sourced (a rarity in this field) historical record we have - the level of detail goes way beyond anything the ABC have ever produced. It's not official, but it's remarkably thorough and precise. If you can find a better researched, more comprehensive source I will be extremely glad to see it. | |||
| ::Overall, I feel ''historical'' and ''modern'' have the best ''verifiable'' external usage. | |||
| ::I fully agree with you on your Bolton example - this is exactly why we still mention the ancient and historic counties in articles. But the geography of current administration should also be shown, and it should be shown according to the agreed Misplaced Pages convention: | |||
| :::''Southwark is a village in the London Borough of Southwark in Greater London. It is in the traditional borders of Surrey'' (although I prefer ''historic'') | |||
| ::If you want to try and change the consensus, that is your prerogative; but you must change the consensus before you change the articles. If you feel bold, propose a change at the talk page of the ], but unless you have truly new evidence or arguments I can't see it succeeding. ] 11:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have no problem with using the word "historic" but I don't see the problem with "traditional" either. As far as I'm concerned all my edits are in line with the agreed conventions. It is 84.9 who is causing problems trying to delete all reference to traditional counties for reasons best known to himself. I thought he was supposed to be banned. Lets not forget we are talking about counties that have existed for 1,000 years and are of huge historical and cultural significance. While the admin counties were dreamed up by a bunch of pen-pushers in the early 70s to decide how people's bins would be emptied. ] 13:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Traditional, historic, ancient, it all means the same thing. The so-called "ceremonial counties" are not defined in statute by that name anywhere either, but the name is used as a ''description''. Similarly, although the 1889 administrative counties were abolished in 1974, that doesn't stop us calling their successors ''administrative counties'' either. ] <small>(])</small> 13:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If they mean the same thing, then it is best to use ''historic'', given its more prevalent external use. This external use is all important when it comes to justifying its use against people who would rather not mention pre-1974 geography at all - the higher the verifiability factor and the higher the number of reliable sources, the easier it is to justify its inclusion to those who disagree. I'm just trying to reduce the number of edit wars. | |||
| :::::All in all, it is best not to remove the current administrative geography county from the first line of any article - whether an infobox is present or not - as doing so will most likely provoke arguments. But feel free to add an mention to the historic county afterwards - and best using the ''exact'' phrasing of the example given above - it was agreed in the naming convention, so it's no-one should complain about it. ] 13:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==UA templates== | |||
| Hello. I note you have added the two "UA templates" to some places in the metropolitan counties. These are not really suitable for places in metropolitan counties as it implies the status of the county is only for lietenancy which isn't the case. It also says "Unitary Authority:" which is only de facto in these cases. However, the templates should of course be used for places affected by the 1990s reforms as in these cases not only were the local authorities changed but the county structure. Kind regards. ] 23:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you are wrong here. All the met boroughs are now unitary authorities, the county councils having been abolished in 1986. To put Merseyside under "administration" for Southport is very misleading as it imples that the borough is still administered from Liverpool, which is clearly no longer the case. ] 08:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is a difference. The ] only abolished the authorities and not the ''administrative divisions'' whereas the ] changed the ''administrative divisions'' and the authorities. ] 08:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::But as you say above they are "de facto" UAs. What use is an "administrative division" if it has no administrative purpose? It's far more realistic to use the UA infobox. Perhaps we can replace "unitary authority" with "metropolitan borough"? ] 08:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is a question for UK government I think. :) I'd considered creating another infobox for the met counties but it would result in instruction creep with too many boxes to choose from. The metropolitan counties continue, under current legislation, to be divided first by county and then by district. They are current UK subnational divisions. They may not serve much practical purpose, aside from joint boards, policing and fire etc. but they remain administrative divisions. ] 09:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Shaw and Crompton== | |||
| <del>Thank you for experimenting with the page ] on Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and has been ] or removed. Please use ] for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the ] if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.<!-- Test-n (first level warning) --> A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: . If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. <!-- 1--> ] 10:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)</del> | |||
| Regarding your edit, the opening paragraph you changed was sourced, and was inline with ]. I repeat ]'s comments from above: | |||
| :''All in all, it is best not to remove the current administrative geography county from the first line of any article - whether an infobox is present or not - as doing so will most likely provoke arguments. But feel free to add an mention to the historic county afterwards - and best using the exact phrasing of the example given above - it was agreed in the naming convention, so it's no-one should complain about it.'' Thanks, ] 10:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| With regard to Shaw and Crompton: My apologies regarding tense - a mistake on my part. I am currently facing problems from another user removing mentions of the ] in place of ] with no context simply because he does not like the borough council - I was wrong to presume you were in league with him and making the same change - '''however''', the reference should not have been removed by yourself and still constitutes vandalism. It was provided in a sensible and well formatted way and is a verifiable source. Regards, ] 11:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :We don't need a reference to show that Oldham and its neighbouring towns are in Lancashire! I know you are trying to improve the article but 250k google hits for "oldham lancashire" (as opposed to just 50k for "oldham greater manchester") shows that this is a pretty widely accepted fact. ] 11:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::On the contrary, the reference is there to stop the removal of the ] from the opening line, following a longstanding dispute on the borough status, not the county status..... You assume I am trying to remove mentions of ] which I am not- I'm actually including it with a context and source - '''so please don't assume it'''. Citation is actually encouraged on Misplaced Pages, and removal of such references is vandalism. | |||
| ::And Google is not the be-all-and-end-all (it can tell me that for example, but it doesn't mean it's true), on Misplaced Pages the convenstions are the be-all-and-end-all, and outside of wikipedia, it is the legal positions. | |||
| ::With regards to county status however, I could argue that ] '''is''' in the traditional boarders of the ], and keep reverting every England article to say that and argue that if I believe it and can provide a Google or obscure ancient source then it must be true. Well I'm not doing that because I have Misplaced Pages's best interests at heart, and am simply trying to improve and source the content rather than cause disputes. I trust this ends our line of communication, as I've outlined my objectives and reasons here and on the talk pages. Thank you for pointing out the tense issue, but you did have no right to remove the source and should not make assumptions that I'm hiding the beloved ] county from the world. | |||
| ::I cannot add anything else, given that I've read the above messages to yourself, and exhausted my reasons for structuring the ] in such a way. Regards, ] 11:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, but equally we don't need a reference to prove that Shaw is within Oldham borough. As far as I'm aware this isn't disputed, and neither is the administrative status of any other town. The geographical status of Shaw as a separate town is distinct from its administrative status as a part of Oldham borough. You seem to accept this but the same logic also applies to counties. Geographical and administrative arrangements should not be confused. ] 12:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please stop reverting my contributions, you are adding erroneous content....For example, ] is in not in Oldham - Lees is it's own town. So please do not add content to my talk page again, patronising or otherwise. I do not want to converse with you. ] 11:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'll quote you on that; I'll revert your changes to the ] page then, given your apparent imformed logic. Sit down. ] 11:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please refrain from adding nonsense to Misplaced Pages, as you did to ]. It is considered ]. If you would like to experiment, use the ]. <!-- Template:Test2-n (Second level warning) --> A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: . If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. <!-- 2--> ] 12:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You're like a kid with a new toy. But I can't be bothered with an edit war over this. Please now stop trying to revive a "county" which was abolished 20 years ago. You are completely out of touch with reality as my point re. google proves. ] 12:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:54, 23 November 2015
Greetings
Greetings! I saw the debate on Talk:Historic counties of England. Pretty conclusive stuff, but still being dismissed by the vocal disbelievers. Of course "a policy exists..." so facts must not be allowed to get in the way! Pretty sad really, but to quote another oft-used phrase "consensus can change", as we've seen with the Royal Mail and their utter climb-down over Rutland. Owain (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. User:Jza84 went into full-on denial mode and User:MRSC is bizarrely still pretending that "ancient or geographical counties" were invented by ABC! The census reports could not be clearer that the "counties proper" were unaffected by the creation of modern local government. Do you think we should take this to arbitration? Lancsalot (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've just been reading some of your postings as well, having tried myself to correct articles and had the inevitable result of them being reverted almost immediately. But it seems as though at Misplaced Pages the "established guidelines" take precedence over facts, not to mention the rule about verifiable information being completely ignored by those with an agenda to try and eradicate knowledge of the real counties, since they cannot produce one single official source to support their claim (since none exists, of course). I certainly believe that the long-established editors of these particular pages are not exhibiting a neutral point-of-view themselves and have an agenda to support the local authorities in their attempts to push their current administrative boundaries. I would not be at all surprised if many of them are actually government bureaucrats themselves in some capacity (especially when looking at opening paragraphs of some place articles which are littered with descriptions of which government statistical region with an obscure alphanumeric designation the place lies within). At least we can hope that those with a deep enough interest will read the talk pages, look at the revision histories, and take the time go to the Assoc. of British Counties site and similar themselves to find the facts. -Paul (Born in Middlesex, in 1966). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.142.201 (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back
I notice you have returned to editing after a long break. Almost all of the edits you have made so far appear to have caused some level of conflict, as did your contributions before your departure. Please remember we are a project to write an encyclopedia and have a number of principles under which we operate. Our talk pages are for us to discuss article improvement, not to antagonise other editors or to put forward original research. To refresh your memory, here below is the welcome message given to all new editors:
Welcome!
Hello, Lancsalot, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Please take the time to read our principles thoroughly, so you will able to contribute more constructively to our project. MRSC • Talk 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Civility
For the avoidance of doubt, your edit here is what is precluded by our principle of WP:Civility. MRSC • Talk 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Anglezarke.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)