Talk:Historic counties of Wales

message: See  for the repeal of some of the traditional counties.   Morwen 11:13, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I know about that, I've also read the discussion at . Obviously the traditional counties cannot have been repealed, as all future legislation including the LGA 1888 and 1972 are based on them. It is also ludicrous to suggest that the union of England and the 'realm of Wales' has ceased to exist as a result of the repeal of the Act. The constitutional implictions apparently have been safeguarded in other Acts. Owain 13:05, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So, let me get this straight.  The counties as established in the Act of Union were not the 'traditional counties', but administrative areas.  The traditional counties came into existence due to 400 years of geographical use of these administrative areas.  Then, when the administrative areas created by the Act of Union, were repealed, the ancient and geographic counties remained unaffected.  Is that all correct?  What is the term for the counties established by the Act and repealed with it?  Morwen 13:31, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's possible to 'get it straight' when one is dealing with centuries old legislation; there are bound to be grey areas. Counties were originally created as an administrative area of one sort or other, but until 1888 they were all what we today call 'traditional'. From the LGA 1888 onwards the administrative functions were discharged on the basis of the new 'administrative' counties and the provision was made for the existing counties to remain as geographic designations. On that basis you cannot repeal a geographic designation. Owain 14:11, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: repeal

message: So I splitted Denbigshire (historic), Flintshire (historic) and Monmouthshire (historic) out based on three important principles
*there is a lack of continuity in time
*there is a lack of continuity in area
*those incarnations having the same area (or similar) should be treated in the same article, rather than splitting by status
These principles are ones I've been following in for example, deciding whether to merge articles about urban districts and rural districts and it seemed natural to apply it further.  I didn't change the Monmouthshire, Denbighshire and Flintshire pages to disambiguation pages (yet).  I am open to debate on this - I do notice a lot of incoming links but wonder how many of these are due to infoboxes that we could automate.
I don't consider this means its open season on splits for other cases. (In Scotland the ones that meet these  principles would be Aberdeenshire (historic), Moray (historic) and Renfrewshire (historic) which have already been split along these lines.
In fact, I'd like to do one merge - Cardiganshire and Ceredigion currently duplicate quite a lot of content unnecessarily, and actually pretty much most of the content of the two articles would want to be identical.  I put a sample of a rewrite at User:Morwen/Card.  If we can get that merged, I don't much care where that goes - the merged article at Cardiganshire would be fine by me.
I'm not terribly keen on the separate articles for Montgomeryshire (district), Radnorshire (district) and possibly Brecknock (borough) either.  Also not convinced we should be having separate Monmouthshire and Monmouth (district) articles.  But since those are definitely defunct entities it's not so much of a big deal as the articles about them wouldn't be expected to have current geographical information - which is where the problem of duplication of content on Cardiganshire comes in.  Morwen - Talk 21:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So 

message: I'm thinking we should follow the Historic counties of England move for this article too? MRSC 16:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  Morwen - Talk 17:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: As per England

message: Some editors may be amused by the references to historic counties in this article.  Should we cite it here?  Probably not.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: and today, "The proposals would see a return to bigger councils, broadly along the lines of the pre-1996 arrangements" ... presumably to cut costs(?) — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many good reasons both for and against bigger councils.  That was not the reason for my comment.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I had not "missed the point".  I know you meant this comparison. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "historic counties" of Dyfed and West Glamorgan... 

message: There is a discussion here  if anyone is interested. Opinions are welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines on how to write about UK counties