• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

---

I am willing to assume good faith and thus that you are not fully aware of the problems I am facing. I am being targetted by a core of users regarding the Shaw and Crompton and Royton articles.

Please note, this is not about removing the traditional county status! This is about a user who refuses to have the borough status' placed before the traditional county. This unregistered user has given me many problems as he wants to hide any mentions of Oldham from the page in place of Lancashire see this edit.

NOTE: I am not hiding Lancshire! I am just trying to put mentions of the Oldham borough first inline with the naming conventions! There is no problem with GREATER MANCHESTER, its in the article as per the conventions already!!!!]

Also look at my Prestwich-cum-Oldham article! I say it is Lancashire not Greater Manchester - I am well aware of the issues involved but I am being victimised and not allowed to speak fairly. This arguement has blown out of nowhere as people keep thinking I'm hiding Lancashire - I'm not! I extend this message out to you to highlight my cause and make clear my objective. If you wish to make peace now given the whole story, I would be grateful.

On the otherhand, should you prefer to persist I have no other option to involve you in an official Requests for arbitration case. Jhamez84 14:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think I understand your problem now. This is part of the reason why infoboxes were created, all the relevant info can be placed in there which prevents this kind of debate from occurring. Admittedly it is a slightly different problem for articles about subjects that aren't places. When the whole naming conventions argument blew up a couple of years ago I suggested that people stick to neutral naming that everyone can agree on, such as using North West England instead of adminstrative/traditional divisions in opening paragraphs. Perhaps that might be worth a try - the rest can always be mentioned further down in the article body. Owain (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. I was genuinely being targetted in an attempt to say I'm hiding Lancashire from these pages - this just wasn't true - I'm merely trying to place the borough status in a proper manner. The dispute blew out of no-where with a little added propaganda/vendetta against me.

I have no objection with Lancashire's inclusion at all, I just want the article to say a) is in b) is in c) in the traditional county of d) in an attempt to reach Wikipedia:Good articles status.

The article currently says a) is in c), in the traditional borders of d) in b) (just not appropriate or inline with any other location article), but an unregistered member keeps halting this.

I trust we have an understanding from here-on, and can both continue our good work. Jhamez84 14:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you may be interested to know that I voted to keep the Friends of Real Lancashire article immediately prior to yourself as outlined on the deletion pagehere. Jhamez84 15:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be in both its own category and the parent category - Cardiff City F.C., Swansea City A.F.C. and many others (see for example Category:English football clubs) are dealt with in that way. This is so the article is in the category that bears its name, and also in the same category as the "set" of articles to which it belongs. This doesn't just apply to football clubs, but is a general rule - see Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. Cheers — sjorford++ 19:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Scotland_counties&action=history you will notice that I did NOT make more than 3 reverts to Template:Scotland counties in a 24 hr period, I made exactly three and then stopped. It was User:Mais oui! who exceeded three reverts not me. Owain (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My apologies - I was careless with the article history and the times. You are correct; I shall unblock you William M. Connolley 07:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Owain - I realise you are only slightly responsible for the split of the welsh geography stubs by county (looks like User:Sloman is the major culprit), but thought you should know that they are creating something of a nightmare at the Stub-sorting Wikiproject. new stub types should always be proposed prior to creation at WP:WSS/P, to check that the new types reach the thresholds required for split - which in the case of geography stubs is 60-65 stubs. Of the 23 Welsh geography categories, only one reaches this target - not surprising, since with only 700 stubs, 23 categories was far too many to be split off (far far less than there were for Scotland - about 2000 - or England - over 4000). Worse, some of the categories are so small as to be of no practical use to editors whatsoever (small categories actually create far more work for editors, which is why we have thresholds in the first place). The categories are almost certainly going to be deleted and the stubs re-merged back into the main category, which means a lot of work for all concerned. Please, in future, if you want to create new stub categories, follow the procedures and propose them first! Grutness...wha? 03:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I created the Newport geo-stub category in readiness for populating it with articles on wards and communities, which should number roughly 50. Perhaps Sloman thought it was part of a bigger piece of work to create stub categories based on principal areas (which it obviously wasn't!) Owain (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert a paragraph I added to the page on Dolgellau earlier today?

The county of Meirionethshire ceased to exist in 1974 and has been replaced by Gwynedd. Dolgellau is no longer a county town. The paragraph I added simply points this out.

--maelor 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merionethshire county council ceased to exist in 1974, but Merionethshire still exists. See Traditional counties of Wales. Owain (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--But they have no formal status and therefore Dolgellau cannot currently be a county town which is why I changed "is" to "was". I think it still needs pointing out to any visitor to the page that Dolgellau is currently in the county of Gwynedd (http://www.gwynedd.gov.uk/popup.asp?type=image&ID=3542&language=1) --maelor 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was the county town before county councils were created in 1889, and it is the county town now. The phrase does not specifically relate to administration, it just means the 'capital' of a county, in whatever de facto or historical sense that may be. As for the administrative status of any given place, that is what the infobox is for. Owain (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox also states that Dolgellau is in Wales and in the Historic County of Merionethshire. Should these duplicated details therfore be removed from the main body of the text?

Do I take it that you would prefer to see the United Kingdom revert back to the state of local government that existed pre-1974?

--maelor 19:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph should be concise. We shouldn't get bogged-down in unneccessary detail. Is it really necessary to go on about Local Government Acts in the opening paragraph about a town? There have certainly been far too many unnecessary local government changes in the last 40 years, but really we shouldn't get too worried about it in opening paragraphs. Owain (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I borrowed your traditional counties userbox. 194.203.110.127 12:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! Spread the word! There was a userbox for it, but that currently seems to exist in limbo - see [2]. Maybe a user category could be created so we all know who we are? Owain (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should most certainly be restored! 194.203.110.127 13:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would we go about getting your excellent traditional counties userbox turned into an official user category? 194.203.110.127 14:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could just recreate it — i.e. paste the code into Template:User traditional counties Owain (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've pasted your code in Template:User British Counties and used it on my userpage. Feel free to edit it (it is yours after all), especially the categories. 194.203.110.127 10:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea why I'm not in the new category, even though I'm using the userbox? Yorkshire Phoenix 10:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like with all the vandalism to your user page it got reverted out somehow. I've replaced the hand-cranked one with the template now and it looks good. Owain (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting that obvious grammatical error: I stress that the word "its" was a leftover from the original edit. 194.203.110.127 11:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling it might have been! :) Owain (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It reads much better now, thanks for your input! 194.203.110.127 12:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see i have added alot more data to the Wikipeda article about the cardiff suburb of St Mellons (although i did it before officially creating my Wiki account, is there any more data i can obtain that might be useful for this article? I will later on be able to add the history of the name and its welsh origin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murfilicious (talk • contribs)

Some history about the parish's relationship with Cardiff when they were separate local government areas and its eventual anenxation would be nice to have — especially given the ambiguous English/Welsh status of Monmouthshire. I recall there was a campaign to keep St Mellons out of Cardiff control in the early 1970s. If there is any further information about that, it would be nice to have too. Owain (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a few people don't like freedom of speech (or real geography) and want this deleted. Lancsalot 00:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle surprise. Same old narrow-mindedness from the same old lot. Owain (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this remark is not directed at me. Likewise, I hope you don't regard me as "narrow minded" or one of "the same old lot". My point was that having this category is likely to cause trouble, as would the existence of an "advocates of denying the existence of traditional counties" category, which this is likely to encourage as a purely tit-for-tat thing. --RFBailey 21:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all - it was referring to the proposer! Owain (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Owain! I'm sure if you are like me your heart freezes for a moment when an editor leaves a message with that title! Don't worry, I'm just messaging you for a bit of info.

I've naturally observed that you're an advocate of the Traditional counties - which I have no objection to. I've actually very much admired your conduct on this subject, particularly with your clear advocation, as it seems you edit in a mature way, and within all the Wiki guidelines - which is something I try to do myself!

I'm messaging you with two points really. The first relating to a point I raised on the Traditional counties of England talk page, regarding a possible renaming to "Historic" counties. I think it's been said that this would be less emotive, and more academically, verifiably and neutrally worded-and I suspect may go some way in calming some of the county tensions! Historic does not imply past-tense as you no doubt are aware of. It would mean the counties are of historic significance and origin.

The discussion is currently open but a little dormant; I was wondering how you felt about this proposed change?

Secondly, and somewhat sadly... I realise he may be a great editing asset, but I'm having problems with User:Lancsalot. He's targetting my edits (which I can assure are quite fair, neutral and within all the guidelines - but being reverted in places such as here and here). I've tried to reason with him but he refuses to communicate with me, and seems to be using tactics not dis-simillar to User:Irate.

Should he intensify his efforts, and as I'm sure he respects you, would you be willing to leave a message of advise to him? - As I would not like to have him blocked or return the tactics.

Although our differences about the counties we personally identify with are clear, I believe this is irrelevant, and largely subtle, as we both seem to edit and acknowledge the appropriate usage of the different county systems!

I hope all is well. Do feel free to message me at any time, and hope you can get back to me with your thoughts on the Historic counties proposal. Thanks, Jhamez84 22:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've probably said elsewhere, I have no objection to the phrase "historic", as this is used by the Encyclopædia Britannica and Association of British Counties. The articles themselves can mention the alternatives i.e. "traditional" (with a small 't') and "ancient or geographic".

As regards the edit wars, it can be seen that a few misplaced letters here or there can invoke strong feelings almost as bad as the never-ending Derry/Londonderry dispute! I can certainly help reach a compromise if needed, because the difference between "historic" and "historical" in this context is quite significant. Incidentally, your edit to the Bolton article included the latter (I'm sure unintentionally!). Owain (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great to hear you have no objections to "Historic"; I sincerely believe it is a more accurate term and will indeed help cool some wars down, which is certainly my number one intention right now.

I did indeed (and rather foolishly) say Bolton is historically in Lancashire... as a desciptive measure for Historic... but I will reword this, as you rightfully pointed out, to say Bolton is part of the historic county of Lancashire, or such.

With regards to User:Lancsalot... it is editors like him which make me think the Traditional county advocates category is a bad idea, and vote as such. If the group consisted more of users like yourself, whom clearly edit within the guidelines and like to express that they identify more with the historic counties, and maintain the article's integrity- I'd be more inclined to join myself!!!

Lancsalot seems to be compromising the spirit of things, and unilaterally changing the consensus on this matter, for example here, and here.

I've left a number of (non-aggressive) messages to him, but he just reverts them (as seen here).

He clearly will not listen to me, and I think if I step in I will give birth to the Anti-Irate, and would still hope that someone very much like yourself can advise him to be a bit more careful.

Thanks very much for your efforts Owain, they have not gone unnoticed. Jhamez84 09:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever consensus is reached in needs to be one based as much on "common sense" as on various acts of Parliament. For example (and I know this refers to Wales and not England as the section title implies) in a bio article it would be common sense to write:

• Tom was born in 1970 in Corwen, Merionethshire
• Dick was born in 1986 in Corwen, Clwyd
• Harry was born in 2000 in Corwen, Denbighshire

Is that reasonable?

However, in a geo article I believe (as someone who is interested on genealogy), that it is essential that we give some reference as to where a place was in the past as well as to where it is today. In order to avoid the sore point of "xxx was in the county of yyy but is now in zzz" a template would be the ideal solution but I still have major reservations about "infobox wales place". -- Maelor  16:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wherever possible I think neutral naming would be best. In this example we can just say the various people were born in Corwen, and leave the explanation of where people consider it to be for the Corwen page itself rather than polluting every other page with it. Also we have to try and detach our notion of where places are from the current local government situation. In Northern Ireland for example there have been many local government reorgansiations and another one is looming, but the six traditional counties are used universally as a description of where places are. Some people may thing that the fact that, in the interests of efficient local government, a large local government area called "Clwyd" existed between 1974 and 1996 is sufficient reason to redefine 'where places are', but geography and government are not one and the same thing. The big problem with your approach is that it ties the two together such that articles on three different people would make it look like they all came from three different places! That surely isn't desirable? As for the infobox: it attempts to explain all the different aspects of geography and government in a non-POV way — what reservations do you have with it? Owain (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I need to call on your expertise in counties. Please can you have a read of Talk:West_Riding_of_Yorkshire#Historic_District_Infobox and let us know your thoughts on the matter. Many thanks, Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've reached an appropriate consensus without me! :) I have suggested in the past that main pages have three sections detailling the administrative, ceremonial and ancient definitions, possibly with Main article...' links leading to fuller articles if necessary. The present infobox itself does state that it's referring to the administrative county, so another one is certainly a possibility. How many places would we need it? East, North and West Ridings of Yorkshire, the divisions of Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire and Sussex; anywhere else? Owain (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just curious. How did you find out about this template? I haven't even implemented it yet although i am about to.

Template:Cardiff, Newport and the Valleys railway stations

I was just browsing through a "what links here" page...

Actually, seperately, is there some tool used for formatting templates? I am really unsure how to do this, only creating templates.

Well there is no hard-and-fast rule, just make sure that similar templates look similar. I just copied the style from the existing Template:Bristol, Bath and South Gloucestershire railway stations.

Simply south 22:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seperately, could you add the commuter lines to the template (including Ebbw Vale). Much appreciated. Simply south 22:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can do! Owain (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How you got there... It was probably mystical. :) Simply south 21:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a reply: hope you can help because I wouldn't like to see a return to the unqualified use of the title county for a field that doesn't necessarily contain the name of a county at all. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem: I'm glad we sorted this out between us. Personally I could live with the administrative counties not being listed rather than return to the unqualified use of the tag "County", since the shire counties and metropolitan counties are repeated under Ceremonial County anyway. Your lookup list is much better as it saves the bother of adding "CountyType" to every infobox! Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to split these, but a couple of things: Monmouthshire now has a huge amount of white space (I presume its the principal area infobox that is pushing things around?). And Monmouthshire Council is technically Monmouthshire County Council: that doesn't get a mention anywhere. (I know its only a bit of Monmouthshire, but that's its legal title) Lozleader 14:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any whitespace but I'll try and see if I can figure out what's causing it. As for the legal title, the LG(W)A 1994 allows both forms, but I will certainly add it in. Owain (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never interject your comments into the comments of other Users on Talk pages or internal Wikipedia pages. It is extraordinarily rude. It makes the assumption that you have some God-given right to provide a running commentary on the expressed thoughts of the other person. You have no such right. Just give people their say, and then you can have yours. I await an apology.

Amazon do an excellent range of publications on modern etiquette. That is, if you do live in the modern world, of course, and are not sitting at your keyboard in a top hat and tails, puffing at a cheroot, as you gaze wistfully at Ye Olde Engeland of Yore and Fable? (Please see Flat Earth Society.)--Mais oui! 10:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a break. Standard email etiquette is to respond to questions as they are asked, it makes reading the questions and answers much easier. Please do not demand apologies, especially when you follow it up with personal attacks. Owain (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]