User talk:Morwen/archive5: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
Secretlondon (talk | contribs) thanks for telling me off |
||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
What do you think of the wording at the [[Warwickshire]] article especially in the traditional county section. Sorry to keep going on about counties I cant think of anything better to do at the moment (really should get a life I know). :PS did you get my last email BTW [[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 22:59, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
What do you think of the wording at the [[Warwickshire]] article especially in the traditional county section. Sorry to keep going on about counties I cant think of anything better to do at the moment (really should get a life I know). :PS did you get my last email BTW [[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 22:59, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
||
Going now. Thank you for telling me off. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] 23:58, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:58, 8 January 2004
Archived talk at User_talk:Morwen/archive1, User_talk:Morwen/archive2, User_talk:Morwen/archive3.
Ceremonial counties
This term has never been used or defined in legislation. Since you are so eager to call UAAs "counties" simply because this is what they were called when created, "ceremonial counties" should be similarly treated and called "Lieutenencies" or "Lieutenency areas" - this is their legal status, not the ABCs. It is also rather more descriptive than "ceremonial county", which could mean anything, and is thus more appropriate in an encyclopaedia. User:80.255
- Meanwhile, back in reality, that's not their legal status, except in Scotland. Legislatively they are defined as "counties for the purposes of this Act". Please see Schedule 1 to 1997 c23 [1]. The term "ceremonial county" has 1,000 google hits, and is used by far more people than a bunch of nutcases led by an astrologer. By the way, please stop referring to me with incorrect pronouns. Morwen 15:16, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
- And while your jabbering irrelevancies, back in the real reality two things are apparent:
- 1. These area were defined in the Lieutenencies Act - and you're trying to tell me that they are not officilly "Lieutenencies"?
- 2. The term "ceremonial county" has never been used to officially describe these entities.
- Call them "lieutenency counties" if you're determined to put the word "county" in; however "counties for the purposes of this Act" simply means that they can be conveniently refered to as such within the Act itself - not that "counties" is their official name.
- However, whether or not you accept their legal status as "lieutenecy areas", they certainly have no legal status whatsoever as "ceremonial counties". 80.255
- There is no legally defined name for them - therefore we go with common usage. Unless you can find a more commonly used term, that is. I note that 'lieutenancy county' has even less usage than 'lieutenancy area', so that makes it a worse suggestion. The term is certainly used by official sources, although not often - See [2] . Morwen 15:35, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
Having fun I see :-) ho-hum. PS did you reply to my last email cause if you did I didn't get it G-Man 16:03, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I think my outgoing email is borken. Morwen 21:48, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
Borken hey, You'll have to email me via the wikipedia email I think, as that seems to work G-Man 20:20, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Problems with Georgia article
Hi Morwen,
Thanks for resolving the Mikheil/Mikhail Saakashvili dispute. I would be grateful if you could also take a look at the related Zviad Gamsakhurdia article, which is being subjected to an edit war by the same user responsible for the Mikheil Saakashvili debacle. As you'll see from Wikipedia:Problem users, several users (including myself) are unhappy that User:Levzur keeps making POV changes to articles but refuses to discuss them (see Talk:Zviad Gamsakhurdia for the "discussion" of that article, which pretty much consists of rants from his side and appeals for discussion from mine). I would be grateful if you could lock the Zviad Gamsakhurdia article until such time as he decides to start discussing his changes. Thanks for any help! -- ChrisO 08:35, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Done already. I think the language barrier may be a problem here. Morwen 08:37, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Possibly, although looking at the editing history, it seems to be more down to political partisanship than anything else. Thanks for the assistance. -- ChrisO 09:52, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hi Morwen,
There is something missing from the first part of South Gloucestershire. It says "South Gloucestershire is a local government, created in 1996 when the county of Avon was abolished.
Could you fill in what should come after "government"?
Thanks Adrian Pingstone 10:39, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hello Morwen, I've drawn up a map of Warwickshire here media:Warwickshiremap 700.png which shows both its modern and historic boundaries, do you like it?, If so I think it might now be safe to unprotect the warks article so I can add it G-Man 22:49, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- looks very cool. I look forward to seeing them for all the other counties. ;) Since I'm a party in the editwar I asked a neutral party to do so. Morwen 22:55, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, but there are only so many hours in the day ;). I think I'll reload it in JPEG format, not really surposed to do that with drawings but my computer cant seem to cope with PNG G-Man 23:10, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- One change that I would make, but I don't know how easy this is, would be to show the boundaries of Solihul, Coventry, and Birmingham boroughs. The dot doesn't really illustrate that Birmingham overflows from historic warwicks. Morwen 23:13, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
OK I should be able to add the borough boudaries. Not sure about how to represent overflowing Birmingham though, I surpose it says that already in the article G-Man 23:18, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This better media:Warwickshiremap 700.jpg G-Man 23:39, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- That looks great. Morwen 23:42, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
Rough - but feeling better than I did this morning. Secretlondon 15:17, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
What is transient? Its up for debate but I'm thinking of fame for less than 15 minutes. We just don't want be a collection of every bit of US media hype. I know it's not precise. Secretlondon 15:53, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Given behaviour of people here, they will waste megabytes about whether their page that has been VfDed on that basis is 'transient' or not. Would you cast the net to include Jade Goody? Eddie the Eagle? Michael Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun? Morwen 15:58, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
Disambiguation
Since you turned New Party into a disambiguation, can you please fix all the links at [4]? --Jiang 22:32, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Sure. Well, I'll try,a nyway. Whether i succeed or not depends how much the served continues to suck for me. Morwen 22:33, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Done. Morwen 22:52, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
What do you think of the wording at the Warwickshire article especially in the traditional county section. Sorry to keep going on about counties I cant think of anything better to do at the moment (really should get a life I know). :PS did you get my last email BTW G-Man 22:59, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Going now. Thank you for telling me off. Secretlondon 23:58, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)