Talk:Historic counties of England/Archive 1

message: What is the source for the abbreviations now being added? I would love to see a published list elsewhere as one or two were very surprising to me. In particular I found (Northumbs.) astonishing, having never seen it before. Since so many of the ones that abbreviate to XXXXs do so because (perhaps?) they were XXXXshire, what's the logic behind Northumbs? Please note that I am not vilely accusing someone of making it up - it's just I'm having one of those what the h*ll? moments that makes me want to see the source. :) Thanks, Nevilley 10:01, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To amplify my point, try comparing the proportions on Google of Northumberland to Northumbs with Northamptonshire to Northants. I think it was roughly something like >2m : ~50 compared with 1.6m : 300,000. I know Google is not the Bible but this (and the docs found on Google) do seem to me to be evidence for the possibility that Northumbs is obsolete or wrong. I doubt that the wiki should be showing as fact a usage which does not appear to be standard, since this appears to condone and legitimise the usage. If it is an archaic usage then perhaps this should be made clear - it surely cannot be left claiming the same validity as Northants? Views would be most welcome. Nevilley 10:16, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think our abbreviating friend must be bored today.  I have never known those abbreviations to be in common use - maybe even any use at all. Several sites have been vandalised and reverts made time and again this morning --garryq 11:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Northumbs" is rarer, but is nonetheless a valid abbrieviation. "Warks" and "Ruts" are frequently seen. If you want to mark the less common ones, by all means do. 129.234.4.10 09:50, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, but it's a valid abbreviation as defined how? The very small number of references I could find using this led me to wonder if it is a mistake, or an archaic usage. I'd love to know which - can you please help with a source? Otherwise I think that it's may be more than "less common" that needs saying here. All I am saying is I would love to read about it in some other information source, which surely should be easy if it's really a valid usage? Thanks. Nevilley 11:11, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

text: What does it give for Rutland? I can't imagine anyone needing to abbreviate this, and then deciding to use such an illogical abbreviation. Andrew Yong 10:20, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't give one for Rutland. Proteus (Talk) 11:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations 

message: How does it make sense to describe Berwick as "Berwick-upon-Tweed - an anomalous possession of Britain" in the first para? I don't mean that I don't understand its status, but I do mean that the expression used there is weird - surely an "anomalous possession of Britain" sounds like it's not actually in Britain but somewhere else (just N of S. Georgia for example)? In fact I think I might change it ... --Nevilley 12:20, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Garryq for his version which I thought good. However I have changed it yet again as it wasn't considered part of Scotland up to then but was somewhere in between (see Berwick's own article for more). Trouble is, it's getting rather wordy for something which started as just an incidental reference to an example of the sort of weirdness that goes on, and each attempt to clarify it is just making it longer. Whilst I would hate to leave it innacurate, I wonder if it can be severely trimmed back (after all people do not need the whole explanantion of Berwick here too when they can read it with one click) or removed, perhaps by finding a less painful-to-describe example? :) --Nevilley 17:21, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berwick (1st para) 

message: I'm wondering if the NPOV message at the top of the page is necessary, and if it is, what parts of the article are disputed: surely the page largely reflects the opinions on both sides already? Andrew Yong 21:30, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Any local historian who knows what they're talking about will use the appropriate county for the period they are referring to.  For instance, in Sheffield, it would be senseless to describe it as lying in the West Riding of Yorkshire in the Saxon period, and it is almost never referred to as lying in the West Riding after 1974.  To say they "almost always" use the traditional counties is simply wrong. Warofdreams 17:14, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Local historians