Talk:Historic counties of England/Archive 2

message: Under the subhead, "The traditional counties movement" in the article, one of the bullet points is "to get Ordnance Survey and other map suppliers to mere and mark the traditional county boundaries". What is "to mere and mark"? If it's a typo, then fine, let's correct it; but if it's a proper usage, can we have an explanation please? The point to this latter being that I haven't heard of it and I very much hope I am not the only one, so it might, without a word of explanation, be too obscure for the encylopaedia. Thanks, --Nevilley 15:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, 'mere' means determine where the boundaries actually lie on the ground, on massive maps.  The OS has a duty to mere the administrative boundaries.  This is important because sometimes traditional boundaries will follow ancient hedges that have since been destroyed; or rivers that have been diverted or culverted.  Morwen - Talk 15:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Golly. You learn something every day! Thanks. I have failed to find this definition anywhere - yet! Would you feel like adding a note explaining this usage? Also, if it's an OS duty, does it need to say "and other map suppliers" or do they do it too? Thanks, --Nevilley 16:09, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, dictionary.com has 'mere' as meaning a boundary (in the noun).  I have to admit I am guessing quite a bit.  There is a section of the Local Government Act 1972 which requires the OS to 'mere' the boundaries - and from context that is what it appears it means.  The statutory requirement is only on  OS.   Morwen - Talk 20:42, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording - mere 

message: For if this gets on the main page, I uploaded a suitable map, without the numbers. Morwen - Talk 12:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blank map 

message: The 'Traditional subdivisions' section contains a number of sentences with past tense references. "Some of the traditional counties had major subdivisions". "Of these, the most important were...". "Since Yorkshire was so big". "The second largest county, Lincolnshire, was also divided into three historic "Parts"". "Other divisions included...". The rest of the section deals with administrative areas that actually are historic, but the sentences above seem out-of-place in the past tense considering correct the use of the present tense elsewhere in the article. Owain 15:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past tense 

message: I think it would be interesting to add some detail about the origin of exclaves to the Authenticity and anomalies section (just their  general origin, unless specific detail is interesting).  I don't know if this information is known, but it was my first thought on reading - why are these areas contained wholly by one county part of a different county entirely? --HappyDog 00:39, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Exclaves? 

message: "Although it is quite possible that the ABC considers debate on this matter a minor priority compared to its more general campaign, so this comment should not necessarily be interpreted as the product of internal dispute."
I've removed this, again, as it has no fact in it at all ("it is quite possible").  As it is, it is POV and presumably could imply it is quite possible it is ripping the ABC group apart.  That is not the case, so I've changed "dispute" to "disagreement" in the previous paragraph.  I suggest more changes to that rather than reinserting this paragraph yet again. 143.167.77.5 19:47, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Vague statement

message: The offhand remark Furthermore, it is questionable whether Parliament could abolish many of them, given that many were not created by Parliamentary bill or Royal edicts, and, as such, could be argued to have an "untouchable" Common Law existence. should be removed or at least have the reference to Common Law removed. Parliament can do pretty much whatever it likes from a legislative point of view. The 19th and 20th centuries were full of examples of Parliament superceding Common Law with Statute - the Theft Act, numerous Land Law reforms, Offences Against the Person etc. It is certainly true that Parliament could not change history and stop people believing that they are in Berkshire when they are actually in Oxfordshire, but Common Law has nothing to do with that. Offhand, ill-considered comments like this devalue many otherwise excellent Wikipedia articles. --24.85.244.155 07:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Parliamentary Soverignty?

message: ::Reverts of the style  aren't helpful. Even you wouldn't disagree with the fact that Southport and Bootle together make Sefton, or that public services are provided from Sefton council. You agreed to the inclusion of these statements later. Why did you make me pointlessly type it out three times? 	 
::I seem to recall that Morwen suggested at the time the naming convention was decided that the 1847 borders for traditional counties are to be used (changes did occur after this, but like most changes in traditional county borders they were relatively minor).	 
::I strongly suggest that you read  (ie the discussions leading up to the naming conventions as well as the conentions themselves) before you make further edits; this is the very least amount of background knowledge to the debate that you should know beforehand. It's a complex issue that other people (principally Morwen and Owain) have a far deeper knowledge on than either of us, and you should heed their advice.	 
::Going against their advice, and editing articles where an (albeit unsteady) settled consensus has been found, like your recent one on Huntingdon, is going to lead you into edit war after edit war.	 
::Labelling people nutters because they have a contrary POV will cause conflict. Labelling people's edits as rubbish will cause conflict . Furthermore, evidence-free deletes are strictly against editing guidelines. A delete is an edit, and edits should be evidenced. There is a burden of evidence on both sides - you should only make a delete if you can disprove the text yourself. 
::It's far better to leave well alone on this topic. After repeated advice from several editors, further edits about this might be seen as wilfully obstructive. I'm sure there are many other areas on which you could contribute far more constructively. Let's try and aim for a quieter life Aquilina 19:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to provide evidence for deletes. You need to provide evidence for inclusion. Your attempting to corrupt the Wikipedia and the princples of rational evidence based argument. What your attempting to do is make anyone that disagrees with your prove a negative, which is impossible. The entire basis of Wikipedia is positive proof, not disproof. The advice was from one editor. I beleive I am still waiting for your to give examples of my mas reverts. (Apparently a reply by IanDavies, --Fasten 19:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A. The introduction should identify the location by removing Merseyide. It historial status should be tackled somewhereelse. B. The intro is still to long and would have been longer. C. Demoting Sefton from the location.--IanDavies 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts of this style aren't helpful 

message: Why isn't Winchcombeshire listed among the traditional counties of England? In other words, why accept some local authority boundary changes and not others? It all seems pretty hypocritical to me. TharkunColl 12:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all areas ending with "shire" are necessarily counties. In any case, the traditional/ancient counties have nothing to do with local authority boundaries, they are the current set of boundaries that exist now, independently of local government. Owain (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Couldnt we have a section on "Lost counties" for entities that were once thought of as counties but did not make it into the traditional system. Lumos3 09:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a good idea to me. Owain (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Winchcombeshire

message: I can sympathise with the anonymous editor who removed what was felt to be propaganda today.  Equally that information does have a place in wikipedia.  I have wikilinked Association of British Counties in the article for people who wish to have a direct reference.  Most, if not all, the removed text is present in the Association of British Counties article currently.  had it not been I woudl have reverted the prior edit and flagged the section with a "mergeto". Fiddle Faddle 10:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted as he is banned and the info is relevant here.  Lancsalot 10:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Works for me.  I'm not sure that the info is genuinely relevant in this article, but I don't feel strongly enough either way.  Fiddle Faddle 10:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Association of British Counties 

message: The opening paragraphs repeat much of the content from this article and should be drastically trimmed down. MRSC 17:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: repetition from [[Traditional counties of the British Isles]]

message: (Please enter # ~~~~ under one of the options to clarify your position.)
Keep as Traditional counties:
# Lancsalot 09:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has long since gone quiet. I note there are only votes to make a change, and I am happy for my vote to count with the 'historic'. Shall we make the move? MRSC 09:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: (Just seen the edit history) And not by a cut and paste move! MRSC 09:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should've been acted on. However I suspect nobody daren't!! 86.133.72.79 14:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, feel free to go ahead.  The major job is to fix all the old links to the current name - i.e. change all the links in here to historic (an AWB if ever I've seen one). Aquilina 15:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind helping fix the inbound links if someone will make the page move. MRSC 06:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Historic counties of England is currently locked/in use, hense a move of this article at present is impossible. I've contacted an admin to clear the page asap so we can make the move. Hope that helps clarify a little.Jhamez84 00:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it now. G-Man * 00:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking consensus 

message: I just begun write czech version of this article, but I can't add to english version czech interwiki :-(
Czech version has name "Anglická tradiční hrabství" see: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglick%C3%A1_tradi%C4%8Dn%C3%AD_hrabstv%C3%AD. --KirkEN 22:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add Czech interwiki 

message: Article says:
:Only one county on the south coast of England has the suffix "-shire".
This is sort of true, and sort of not true.  Dorsetshire and Devonshire are not usually used, but they aren't incorrect in the way that Kentshire or Sussexshire or Cornwallshire would be.  It seems wrong to conflate these two separate instances. john k 20:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. These forms may not be commonly-used, but they are not wrong either. "County of X" and "X-shire" are usually equivalent. In fact, certain older documents even refer to Kentshire, Sussexshire, &c. Perhaps the wording could be altered to "Only one county on the south coast of England usually has the suffix "-shire" in common usage"? Owain (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South coast of England. 

message: Mais oui! highlighted an imported point when he removed information regarding the status of Monmouthshire and any other references to Welsh and Scottish counties.  Why do we have a separate Traditional counties of England article instead of Historic counties of Great Britian (where the removed information could be included)?  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Largely because they have different origins and fates.  Morwen - Talk 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All counties have different origins. Berkshire has a different origin from Lanacashire for example. Owain (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I added it back in. Owain (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps if you would keep the same IP address for more than a couple of edits, or register (if you're allowed) then we could critique your contributions?  St Helens being in the United Kingdom is an "incredbly bizarre point of view"?  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "St. Helens is in Merseyside, England." Are you trying to say that St Helens is not in Lancashire or the United Kingdom?  Both of which would be very POV - no wonder can't register!  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably best if everyone would ignore or delete comments of this hardbanned user.  Morwen - Talk 06:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Hmmm. 
It would be very useful if someone could get access to The Times of April 1st 1974, and see what statement was being quoted by whom. This seems to be an important article of faith to the trad county movementarians.
I'm not sure that  is much of a source. The whole page is distinctly POV. I wonder what Department of the Environment document they are quoting?
See also discussion here.
Lozleader 14:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can investigate this in the British Library's newspaper collection at Colindale at some point.  Don't know when I'll get there, mind.  Morwen - Talk 14:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most reasonably sized reference libraries have the Times on microfilm. Not mine of course Lozleader 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or better still allow you to access the Times Diigital Archive online from home: huzzah!
from The Times, April 1, 1974
 New areas are administrative
 According to a Department of the Environment official, the new county boundaries are solely for the  purpose of defining areas of first-level government of the future:"They are administrative areas and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties, nor is it intended that ther loyalties of people living in them will change."
 Citing Middlesex as an example, he said that although that county had been swallowed up in Greater London in 1965 and disappeared for governmental purposes, the name still exists for postal and other reasons. "Similarly the broad acres known as Yorkshire will remain unaltered despite the different names adopted by the new administrative counties."
This comes from page II of a special 12 page report entitled "Yorkshire and Humberside", detailing the changes in that area.
Lozleader 15:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh yes, the article was written by Raymond Gledhill, Local Government correspondent of the Yorkshire Post, and was entitled "White Rose ties hold fast despite amputations and shake-up of boundaries"
Lozleader 15:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So part of wording supplied by the Times and not attributed to the DoE has been misattributed to the government - also the best words have been cherry-picked (the reference to Middlesex doesn't quite follow the party line).  Morwen - Talk 15:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hansard link doesn't contain the thing quoted to it.  However, on the next page from the Hansard link a far more equivical quotation is given - shall we quote that as well?  Morwen - Talk 16:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government Statements