User talk:Owain/archive2

Archive 1

Thanks (re valleys)

Wow, Wikipedia ate my comment. Erm.

Yeah, well, thanks re the reorganisation of the sentence in the Pontardawe article. Makes much more sensible reading now. Telsa 00:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; you might like to keep an eye on the Shipston article as User:G-Man is once again trying to twist his own, unique interpretation of "policy" into incorporating a silly libel of traditional counties into it, just for the hell of it, from what I can see. Best regards, 80.255 23:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'twist', 'unique interpretation', "policy", 'silly', 'libel', 'hell'? Wow, that's quite a lot of strong language and hardly chosen to calm things down so we can come to a consensus. I agree with G-Man's view of the policy and that alone demonstrates it's not a unique interpretation. By the way, I don't see how he can have libelled a county, what a very strange idea!

It would be good if we could all approach this difficult issue calmly and politely. That's the only hope any of us have of reaching a resolution and avoiding harm to this wonderful project called Wikipedia. Please, take it easy. Chris Jefferies 22:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox England place

I've posted a suggestion for improvement on the above talk page. Please let me know if you have any comments. Bhoeble 01:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesex

G-Man is once again doing completely unacceptable things to Middlesex. I think it's time we rallied the troops and got this ridiculous farce of a policy put to rest. I feel pretty sure that there will be no "consensus" in favour of the current situation when this goes to the vote. I'm drafting a proposal for change; email me via wikipedia if you have any suggestions. 80.255 20:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huntingdon

Hi Owain, please read and respond to my note on Talk:Huntingdon. Thanks. Chris Jefferies 09:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Owain 10:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Places in Wales

I see you have had an idea of some "neutral names" for places in Wales. While I haven't had time to give any thought to whether this is a good idea or not, would you please propose these at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) for discussion as they presently go against agreed policy. thanks, Warofdreams talk 14:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) and some of my original points listed on that page! :) I don't think we ever got to an agreed position regarding the actual naming of the articles in contentious cases, but in conjunction with the current "Neutral naming" thinking on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)#Neutral naming I was bold and extended it to the naming of the contentious articles themselves. I have noticed that various other articles don't use the "Town, county" format, such as Lancaster, England, Perth, Scotland, &c, so my changes shouldn't be controversial. Owain 14:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your thinking, but it doesn't look like there was ever agreement on the "neutral naming". As you point out, there wasn't agreement on which counties to use, either, but it was agreed to use counties - which is in line with the practice across the rest of the UK, so it'd be good to discuss changes to this policy on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names). I'll copy this discussion there. Warofdreams talk 16:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper Links

Hi, I've raised the question of these at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Links_to_local_newspaper_websites_in_geographic_articles.3F. You may like to visit to put your point of view. --Cavrdg 19:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Penal transportation

Indeed, that answers my question! I didn't know that "transportation" could be a synonym for deportation. I only knew the latter term. Thanks for educating me! (No sarcasm intended: I like Wikipedia because I can learn a lot here.) Lupo 19:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An odd kind of punishment really; not really deportation becuase the people in question were British subjects and retained their citizenship. In certain cases, such as John Frost, they could even come back after a suitable period. Owain 19:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouthshire/Gwent issue

Monmouthshire was absorbed by Gwent in 1974, in the same way that Radnorshire was absorbed by Powys, Pembrokeshire absorbed by Dyfed, etc.

When talking about administrative areas, one council replaced another, but the ancient county was not absorbed by anything. This is a common misconception that over-simplification tends to perpetuate.

It depends at what level you want to separate the actual geographical area from the authority responsible for running it. While (as you argue) Radnorshire still exists in some sense, the county council was abolished in 1974 and was "absorbed" by Powys.

Agreed. The Local Government Act 1972 made the geographical area and the council one and the same thing and in doing so over-simplified things. Councils and counties had always been separate (with county boroughs and Yorkshire Ridings, Parts of Lincolnshire, &c being separate councils), but this Act made it appear that there was now a direct relationship between the two, and in doing so that all the counties had changed, whereas in reality councils and counties had been separate entities since 1889. If we wanted to be extremely precise, the corporate body Monmouthshire county council was wound-up, and a new corporate entity "Gwent county council" was formed. To simply say X absorbed Y doesn't separate the corporate bodies from the geographical areas, and isn't true in a legal sense either.

Perhaps "absorbed" could be replaced with a different word that explains the situation in a manner more to your liking, e.g. "administered by" as is used in the Pembrokeshire article. Either way, there should be a mention of Gwent somewhere on the Monmouthshire page, to explain what happened between 1974 and 1996.

Administrative history is of limited interest. Maybe there should be a mention of it, but perhaps in the administrative section, rather than the traditional county section. Allow me to have a stab at it.

Administrative history is of interest (not just to me), as evidenced by the number of articles on administrative areas on Wikipedia. Your most recent edit has, however, improved things in this regard.

I appreciate that, which is why there should be different articles for Monmouthshire as an ancient county and the current Monmouthshire unitary authority area. Then the specifics of each situation would be contained in their own article and not "pollute" the other one.

The revert also managed to undo the layout change I made to make the text start at the top of the page level with the infobox, and also reverted a spelling correction. Please take more care with such reversions! --RFBailey 13:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the spelling correction was necessary, "locally situate" is perfectly good grammar. Owain 13:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the wrong tense; "locally situate" doesn't make sense. --RFBailey 14:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm fine with it either way! :) Owain 17:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouthshire was regarded as being part of England until 1996,when it was ceded back to Wales. - (Aidan Work 04:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Surely you mean 1968? That's when there was an Order in Council supposedly clarifying it. I still think there will always be some ambiguity but that's no bad thing, it gives people something to talk about! Owain 09:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diocesan Cathedral?

Owain, can you explain the term Diocesan Cathedral that you've used in the City Status article? Aren't all Anglican Cathedrals Diocesan anyway? --Statsfan 15:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary definition of cathedral can also cover churches that aren't the principal church of a bishop's diocese. But that wasn't the point of my edit — it was to point out that only cathedrals that were the basis for the awarding of city status should appear in the Cathedral column of the city list. Owain 10:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Owain, as I am an Anglican, I can clarify the meaning of 'Diocesan Cathedral'. It is the main cathedral in the Diocese.A Diocese can have more than one cathedral. The Diocesan Cathdral is the seat of the Bishop. For example, St Paul's Cathedral here in Wellington, New Zealand is the Diocesan Cathedral of the Wellington Diocese, as that is where Bishop Tom Brown has his seat. (Aidan Work 00:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Soke of Peterborough

hi. i notice you keep changing the stub on this article to just england-geo-stub. all englands geography stubs are split by ceremonial county, and this is now entirely within cambridgeshire so it gets cambridgeshire-geo-stub. please stop changing it. BL kiss the lizard 02:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK geography COTM

OK, so I finally found time for some Wikipeding (after about five months of Northumberland!) and have picked Nottinghamshire for the next COTM. I've added a to do list to the talk page and have already started work adding some of the basic data. Joe D (t) 04:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. To stop receiving updates, unsubscribe at WP:UK geo.[reply]

Hi, the new COTM is Norfolk! Joe D (t) 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this month's COTM is Dartmoor. I have added some suggestions to Talk:Dartmoor to get things started. Joe D (t) 01:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (P.S., if you don't want to continue getting COTM updates, just change your settings at WP:UK geo.)[reply]

Thanks for the greetings

It was in Gwent when I was born. - Newport 20:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the local authority of Gwent existed when I was born too, but that doesn't change where I'm from :) Owain 09:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Road street names

Please check out Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(places)#Road_street_name where I ask for policy on use of common or official names. I think User:Darkcore is over doing it in using common names. Thank you, Cafe Nervosa | talk

Merry Christmas!

I've been away for some time, and I notice that certain people seem to have been up to their old tricks again regarding factual and informative content on certain divisions of the British Isles. Do you know what's going on here? Best regards, 80.255 01:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons greetings! There have been a few changes like merging the administrative and traditional Scottish county articles, which are OK. Worse assumptions were about to be jumped to, which I think I prevented - see [1] where the LGA 1888 wording "A place which is part of an administrative county for the purposes of this Act shall, subject as in this Act mentioned form a part of that county for all purposes, whether sheriff, lieutenant, custos rotulorum, justices, militia, coroner, or other" was going to be assumed to mean abolition of ancient counties! Owain 12:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Police stuff

Good stuff digging up those circulars. Morwen - Talk 14:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The user interface to knowledgenetwork.gov.uk is a pretty rubbish Lotus Notes front-end, but thankfully most has been indexed by Google! :) Owain 15:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Counties Userbox

As part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes, I removed the fair-use image from {{User traditional counties}} and used subst: to avoid a Meta-Template. If you can find a free use image to put in it's place, that would be great. 1001001 04:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove legitimate cats

Why did you remove Category:Highland from the Fort William article? Please do not remove the modern council cats as you go round adding the old county cats: you are just creating an awful lot of work for other editors who will need to go round and add them all back in.--Mais oui! 14:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because Category:Inverness-shire is a subcategory of it. It is wikipedia policy not to have an article in a category that it is already in by virtue of being in a sub-category. Owain (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inverness-shire is not uniquely a subcat of Highland. It is (or should be) also a subcat of Category:Moray.

To be honest with you, I have been very seriously considering bulk nominating all the Category:Traditional counties of Scotland and all subcats for a merge to Category:Subdivisions of Scotland and all subcats at Categories for deletion. I had swithered and softened my opposition, but if you go around removing all the modern subcats, and substituting them with defunct units of local government, then I will review my decision.--Mais oui! 15:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you go round categorising, it would be extremely helpful if you could add in these modern sub-units too: Category:Committee areas of Scotland.--Mais oui! 15:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wallingford

What is wrong with fixing the forded link to forded in the Wallingford article? Mucky Duck 14:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, nothing. You must have made that edit at the same time as I added the police section to the infobox! Feel free to add it back in! Owain (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I've never had that happen before. Mucky Duck 15:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenancies Act 1997

Do we have a source for what Lieutenancies existed in Scotland form 1973 to 1996? I wouldn't be certain that the 1996 Order merely re-enacted the pre-1996 ones. I was pondering buying a copy of the LGA(S)1973 in order to get exact relationships as per England and Wales. Morwen - Talk 11:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can make out, the LGA(S) 1973 expressed the Lieutenancies in terms of district council areas:

Aberdeenshire - Gordon DC, Banff & Buchan DC (part), Kincardine & Deeside DC (part)
Angus - Angus DC
Argyll & Bute - Argyll & Bute DC
Ayrshire & Arran - Cunninghame DC, Kilmarnock & Loudoun DC, Kyle & Carrick DC, Cumnock & Doon Valley DC
Banffshire - Banff & Buchan DC (part), Moray DC (part)
Berwickshire - Berwickshire DC
Caithness - Caithness DC
Clackmannan - Clackmannan DC
Dumfries - Annandale & Eskdale DC, Nithsdale DC
Dunbartonshire - Dumbarton DC, Clydebank DC, Bearsden & Milngavie DC, Strathkelvin DC, Cumbernauld & Kilsyth DC
East Lothian - East Lothian DC
Fife - Fife Region
Inverness - Inverness DC, Badenoch & Strathspey DC, Lochaber DC
Kincardineshire - Kincardine and Deeside DC (part)
Lanarkshire - Clydesdale (or Lanark) DC, Motherwell DC, Hamilton DC, East Kilbride DC, Monklands DC
Midlothian DC - Midlothian DC
Morayshire - Moray DC (part)
Nairn - Nairn DC
Orkney
Perth and Kinross - Perth & Kinross DC
Renfrewshire - Renfrew DC, Inverclyde DC, Eastwood DC
Ross and Cromarty - Ross & Cromarty DC
Roxburgh, Ettrick and Lauderdale - Roxburgh DC, Ettrick and Lauderdale DC
Shetland
Stewartry of Kirkcudbright - Stewartry DC
Stirling and Falkirk - Stirling DC, Falkirk DC
Sutherland DC - Sutherland DC
Tweeddale - Tweeddale DC
Western Isles
West Lothian - West Lothian DC
Wigtown - Wigtown DC

The The Lord-Lieutenants (Scotland) Order 1996 re-creates the exact same list but expresses them in different ways. I'm not sure what (if any) effect this would have on their areas though. Owain (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that list is right it looks like there will be only minor differences. For example Monifieth was in Dundee pre-1996 but became part of the Angus council area. Morwen - Talk 15:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laws in Wales Act

I saw you made a redlink on wikisource? Is this for a reason? ;) Morwen - Talk 13:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I spent many a happy hour over the last few months typing it in. I have it in a nice HTML format at http://owain.vaughan.com/1535c26.html but I need to wikify it otherwise it might look a bit odd on Wikisource... Any volunteers? :) Owain (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just stick it there as is. All that needs doing is turning the sections into headers. The text is a particularly excellent example of the type of legal repetion you got in that era and still survives in some legal phrases today (breaking and entering, let and hindrance, will and testament). I am particularly amused by the spelling 'Kayermarthen'. Morwen - Talk 13:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systemmatic vandalism

Please desist from your highly disruptive campaign vandalising the subdivisions of Scotland articles. The counties were abolished in 1975. Please stop going round them all changing the past tense to the present tense. Just grow up and get over it.--Mais oui! 15:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abolished in 1975 for local government purposes but still used in other contexts. e.g. Watsonian vice counties, registration counties, postal counties, not to mention general geographic purposes. The Scottish Executive still refers to the counties in the present tense, so are you going to write them a letter telling them that because a narrow piece of local government legislation was passed that they are wrong? As the term is not used in local government any more, it's perfectly unambiguous to refer to them and cause no confusion. Counties/Shires in Scotland are still important cultural entities independent of their former use in local government. Each article has space for an explanation of the local government situation which I have tried to add, without belittling the continued cultural importance of the counties. My changes of "former" to "traditional" is consistent with this. Owain (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish parishes/communities

My understanding was that the Scottish parish councils had been abolished in 1929 - and that the community councils were newly set up in 1975, with no continuity although the areas were based on the old parishes - also they don't have anywhere near the statutory functions that England and Wales parish and community councils had? Morwen - Talk 18:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right - I just copied that bit blindly from the LGA 1972 article. Section 1 of the LGA(S) 1929 transfers the parish councils' functions to town, district or county councils and Section 51 of the LGA(S) 1973 reads "Every local authority within the meaning of this Part of this Act shall, before 16th May 1976, or such later date as may be agreed by the Secretary of State, submit to the Secretary of State, in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act, a scheme for the establishment of community councils for their area.". So they are clearly non-contiguous. I shall make the necessary changes. Owain (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I notice List of communities in Scotland is a redlink! I shall have to fix that at some point. Morwen - Talk 18:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947

Hi, I was reading this article, and I'm just wondering what the 1947 Act actually changed? Did it reassign powers between the different types of unit or simply consolidate existing legislation? Just aking :-) Lozleader 09:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The effect to the average person in the street was reasonably minor — i.e. there were still county councils, town councils, &c. but the Act itself extends to some 382 sections! A lot of the 1889 Act was repealed and replaced by new provisions of the 1947 Act. The most important thing from our perspective is that it created the local government areas that were abolished by the 1975 Act. Owain (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On-going vandalism of the Scottish local authority articles

Please desist from your on-going campaign to vandalise every single Scottish local government article you can lay your hands on. It is infantile in extremis.--Mais oui! 20:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this for the last time: IT IS NOT VANDALISM. Please explain to me why your edits of "county" to "former county" aren't vandalism, and yet my edits of "former county" to "traditional county" ARE. You clearly have a problem with Scottish counties, but that prejudice has no place in a factual encyclopædia. Owain (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I am objecting to, and you know it. What I am objecting to, in the strongest possible manner, is that you are going round changing every reference to any Scottish county to the present tense! They were abolished 31 years ago. Get over it. Banffshire was a county blah blah blah, not Banffshire is a county blah blah blah... --Mais oui! 14:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That IS what you are objecting to. I have made changes from "X is a former county" or "X was a county" to "X is a traditional county". That is the same thing. The first wording requires no tense change, whereas the second one does. "They were abolished 31 years ago. Get over it.". I see you haven't read or responded to my points at Template_talk:Scotland counties. Please do and then stop making such statements. Owain (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is not, and never has been, such a thing as a "traditional county" in Scotland. That term has a very definite, current meaning in England and Wales, and you know it. It is thoroughly misleading and downright dishonest for you to persist using it in Scottish articles. Grow up.--Mais oui! 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop insulting me and read the legislation. Are you suggesting that people who use county names in Scotland (i.e. by tradition) are being dishonest? Counties have always had a variety of uses and were not defined for one specific purpose. The first and foremost use for a shire is just that — a piece of land sheared off from the rest geographically. Just because one of those purposes that was based on these geographical areas (i.e. local government) has ceased proves nothing. Read the legislation. the LG(S)A 1973 abolished local government areas that were created by the LG(S)A 1947. Owain (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huntingdon

You can also stop vanadlising Huntingdon. Why don't you set up your own fantasy county Wiki rather than trying to corrupt Wikipedia.--IanDavies 12:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and understand the discussions and conclusions that were arrived at long before you joined Wikipedia. For example, before unilaterally reverting pages, it would be wise to check the relevant talk pages, e.g. Talk:Huntingdon. The opening wording has been agreed to be neutral so as not to prefer one PoV over another. I am sick and tired of newbies accusing me of vandalism when I am reverting to a previously-agreed wording. Owain (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your a POV vandal nothingelse the arguments were not settled you just bludgeoned those that disagree with you.--IanDavies 14:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon, but READ THE DISCUSSION. The neutral wording offended no-one and pushed neither PoV, which is why it will be re-instated. Please refrain from unilateral reverts and personal attacks. Owain (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic vandalism of the counties of Scotland

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Mais oui! 13:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing other User comments

Please do not remove comments left by other Users on Talk pages Talk:Traditional_counties_of_England. Such behaviour is considered to be vandalism. Your deletions have been restored.--Mais oui! 16:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get off your high horse, I have already explained that this was not a deliberate attempt to evade questions which I have subsequently answered. Why would I have deliberately deleted a question aimed at the party who was arguing with me? This was an innocent accidental revert which incidentally has nothing to do with you. I would consider this vandalism, so people in glass houses... Owain (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]