User talk:MRSC/Archive 11

Please create headings when leaving me a message in the first instance. Thanks.

List of counties of the United Kingdom

On a quick look it seems about right. If I felt like getting picky, the following points might be relevant:

• Isle of Ely: this was a liberty until 1837, thence a division of Cambridgeshire, so shouldn't have a green tick in "Before 1889".

• Hampshire: might be worth mentioning that it was officially the County of Southampton until the 1950s.

• Isle of Wight: have to check the status of this pre 1889: the Governor of the Isle had lieutenancy powers, but I suppose tht's only the same as the constable of the Tower in the Tower division.

• City of London: bit of a tricky one, I guess it was a "county" from 1889, but then again it had members on the LCC, IIRC. It certainly wasn't a met or non-met county...

• Yorkshire 1889 - 1974: was complicated, as they had lord-lieutenants. Yorkshire was undivided so far as [it was] one county" at the passing of the 1888 Act. Probably a footnote will do it.

• Caernarfonshire: The county was never called "Caernarfonshire" during its actual existence: it was Carnarvonshire until the 1920s then Caernarvonshire up to 1974. I guess the ghostly "historic county" has this spelling. Of course what became the post 1996 Gwynedd was originally to be called "Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire".

Lozleader (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Road (stadium)

Hi there. Just to let you know I have moved the article back to it's original title. The consensus at WP:FOOTY is that stadium articles should be located at their non-sponsorship names where possible. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Lancashire in 1961 image

Just to say you've done a very good job by creating Image:Lancs 1961.png. It's a very good, clear map. Cwb61 (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ceredigion/Cardiganshire

Hi, thanks for your note. I agree that there is a strong argument for merging Cardiganshire into Ceredigion. I was responsible, with the general support of the community (UK Geo etc), for drastically revising the Welsh place categories part of which entailed deleting the Cardiganshire category and its sub-cats in favour of Ceredigion. The Cardiganshire and other cats for the so-called historic counties had been unilaterally created by a contributor who has gone to great lengths to give precedence to the former counties, even to the extent of deleting references to the modern ones. So be prepared for some flak from that quarter if this goes ahead! Have you sounded anyone else's opinion? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Middlesex

The article Middlesex you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Middlesex for things needed to be addressed. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rutland

I am a little confused as to why you undid some perfectly valid changes I made to the Rutland entry (March 19th) and replaced them with the original, less accurate version. Surely wikipedia is about providing users with correct information, rather than locally biased partial truths? As someone who works with spatial data on a daily basis, I would be very interested to hear your justification!

Just to be clear, Rutland is NOT a county anymore and hasn't been since 1974. I refer you to the 'beginners guide to UK geography' produced by the ONS: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/counties_nonmet_ua.asp

and to the related map:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/downloads/UK_LADUACty.pdf

and to the latest list of UK counties:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/downloads/31_10_01_County_names_and_codes_12_00.xls

I hope this helps with clarification - I would be nice if you could impliment these changes, otherwise I will do it.

Best wishes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.197 (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but i noticed this discusssion going on. I checked the legislation that created Rutland a unitary authority: The Leicestershire (City of Leicester and District of Rutland) (Structural Change) Order 1996, and there I found the following:

Constitution of new counties 8.—(1) Leicester and Rutland shall cease to form part of Leicestershire.

(2) A new county shall be constituted comprising the area of Leicester and shall be named the county of Leicester.

(3) A new county shall be constituted comprising the area of Rutland and shall be named the county of Rutland.

(4) Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act (which provides that every county shall have a council) shall not apply in relation to the counties of Leicester and Rutland.

My understanding is that it is both a non-metropolitan district and a county. This is also the case with Herefordshire (and the order establishing the current district contains similar wording).Lozleader (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Charlton

I am not getting how the current open station takes dominance over the examples which i have just given on the talk page. See Talk:Charlton railway station. Simply south (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

See the reply. Simply south (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland county boroughs

Hi. I wonder if the NI C.B.s shouldn't be in the List of counties of the United Kingdom, seeing as they have separate leutenancies. The county boroughs created by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 were different than the English & Welsh ones in that respect, and are similar to the Welsh preserved counties now. You will also get people asserting that Belfast is in counties Antrim and down, which the 1898 Act makes clear it isn't.

Here are the relevant bits of the 1898 Act:

21.—(1.) Each of the boroughs mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act shall be an administrative county of itself, and be called a county borough.

69.—(1.) A place which, for the purposes of this Act, is a part of an administrative county shall, subject as in this section mentioned, form part of that county for all other purposes, whether assizes, sheriff, lieutenant, custos rotulorum, justices, general quarter or petty sessions, jurors, militia, police, registration, coroner, clerk of the peace, or other county officers, or otherwise, and a sheriff and lieutenant for the counties of the cities of Belfast and Londonderry may accordingly be appointed in like manner as for any other county of a city named in section four of the Municipal Privilege (Ireland) Act, 1876 , and as respects the sheriff in the manner in the said Act provided, and a sheriff and lieutenant shall cease to be appointed for those counties of cities and towns which under this Act do not become county boroughs.

Also the authority for the lieutenancies in NI is not the Lieutenacies Act 1997 ("An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the lieutenancies in Great Britain"), it is The Northern Ireland (Lieutenancy) Order 1975 (SI 1975 No. 156), itself made under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and continued by the Reserve Forces Act 1980. This might be just a footnote or two, but technically they are separate counties just as much as Bristol is. It is however worth noting that the county boroughs are smaller than the local government districts, which means that the suburban areas of the City of Belfast are indeed in Antrim and Down....

Lozleader (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I amended your amendment! Belfast was not a county of a city, the county status was created de novo in 1899. It was the only innovation: the other county boroughs (Cork, Dublin, Limerick, Waterford) were counties pre 1899 , but Belfast was on grounds of population (I think it was larger than Dublin at one point). There were some counties of cities that were supressed at the same time: places like Carrickfergus and Kilkenny. In fact the Irish Act was a good deal tidier in many regards than the LGA1889. It also brought in the district councils at the same time as had been the intention in England and Wales. Lozleader (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Romford rural 1931.PNG

Image Copyright problem

Hi MRSC!
We thank you for uploading Image:Romford rural 1931.PNG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

London at FAC

London has been nominated as a featured article candidate. As a major contributor to the article, do you support the nomination or do you consider it premature? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:AL_postcode_area

Template:AL_postcode_area, Template:AB_postcode_area & Template:BA_postcode_area have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — WOSlinker (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian

I've raised a Wikiettiquette alert over User:Yorkshirian with this diff, particularly over this edit (which is the final straw for me). I would appreciate your commentary at that page as I want to have this abuse stopped. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I put that strange word vertified into an advanced search on User and Talk. I came up with another user who has contributed to Yorkshire articles. Curiouser and curiouser.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of service ...

... now get back to working on what you're supposed to be working on ... Kbthompson (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Curious

Quite right! I joined in 2006 under User:Jhamez84. Let me take a look at what's been going on and I'll get back to you, though, from a cursory glance, I'm shocked by this latest revelation. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Saddleworth White Rose Society

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Yorkshire

Please do not use Wikipedia talk pages for inappriopriate discussion. Talk pages are designed for discussing content changes to Wikipedia articles, not airing your personal views on an editor. You might be interested in reading Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Important guidelines for you to follow include "Keep on topic", "Stay objective", "Deal with facts"... and "Discuss edits". If you aren't following these, then you have no reason to click the "edit" button on the top of an article talk page. I hope this helps you, thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)