User talk:80.255/archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive page. See User talk:80.255 for current talk.

Newer old talk now in User talk:80.255/archive 2.


Fish names[edit]

I'm going through a systematic list of fish types (Bond's book), and you inserted a bunch randomly right in the middle - when I'm done, I'll go back and add yours that are valid but not on my list. Sorry about the silent overwrite, it's more efficient this way. Stan 21:17, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ant references[edit]

Not to be too much of a stickler, but let's be honest -- of all of the characteristics of this peninsula that could be written about, is it really the fact that "the rare formicine ant Formica exsecta (the narrow-headed ant)" can possibly be found there?

I truly don't want to discourage you from working on the Wikipedia, but it really does seem to me that you could contribute a lot of new information about ants, rather than simply adding obscure information on rare ant species to different articles -- especially those which are entries on geographical locations?

Cheers, -- Bcorr 03:04, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I consider this reference very relevant; it certainly isn't unreasonable that someone wanting to know about lizard point would find information about rare wildlife there both interesting and relevant. Granted, mentioning HStJKD is going a little overboard, but mention of and link to Formica exsecta (an article on which I have just started) is not.
Since I don't know a great deal about the geology of the peninsula, I cannot contribute information on it. Conversly, since I do know alot about its ant-fauna, I can, and will. The fact that it is currently absurdly overbalanced towards what you call "obscure information on rare ant species" is solely because no-one has yet added any more "mainstream" information - when this is present, the balance will be restored, and my ant reference will be a interesting a relevant detail to the whole article.

Plural term redirects[edit]

Hi :) Please don't create redirects with plural terms, ie [[Beetles]] is unnecessary since you can create the same effect with [[Beetle]]s and it'll show up as Beetles. Thanks Dysprosia 07:03, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Certainly. I'll change the link to Beetless. 80.225

naming conventions[edit]

Hi. I just see you two articles Dorylinae and Driver ant. However the consensus is to have articles about animals (same applies for plants and fungi and bacteria of course) placed on their common english name (if it have one), and make the taxonomic name a redirect to this. Any alternative (less common names, obsolete taxonomic names) should be redirects as well, and eventually mentioned in the article. You can find it and its rationale somewhere in the discussion around Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. If you do two articles then one would basically only contain "xxx is yyy" - hence nothing else but a redirect. andy 12:49, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Counties, part I[edit]

Hi. I notice you've been going around modifying articles to clarify what county means. This is great, except that the specific way you've been doing this is not neutral. Affording historical counties a capital C, and relegating administrative counties to have the county within scare quotes is clearly judgemental. Could you please use the actual term as defined, which is "administrative county" in future? Put the whole lot in quotes if you must, even that would be better. Thanks, Morwen 22:42, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In regards to your communication, I and many others consider the historical counties just an interesting historical anomaly, and the disclaimer in the legislation merely a sop to tradionalists such as yourself. I would contend they do indeed not have equal status with administrative counties - rather they are inferior. And it is not as if the traditional counties are anything more than government-created boundaries for administrative purposes - just by governments centuries ago. If I were editing the articles in accordance with my prejudices, I would not even mention the historical counties as something presently existing and just mention them as former boundaries. So what I suggestedg, treating them neutrally, with equal status is I hope a reasonable compromise between these positions. I'm not quite sure what you mean with the proper noun thing - can you find any usage of "County" like that in non-polemical works? Hope we can reach a consensus on this. Morwen 18:31, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

My proposed wording is "xyz town is administered as part of This-and-that, but is in the historic county of Suchandsuch. Prior to the 1998 local government act is was administered as part of the metropolitcan county of Suchandsuch."

The only reason that I can see why wikipedia would want to use quote marks round terms like administrative county or metropolitan county is to express disapproval of them. But I should hope always qualifying county with administrative (or metropolitan or whatever) where it doesn't refer to a traditional county, should satisfy both sides - it takes care of the ambiguity issue which seems to have been your reason for making the changes. In many cases the wording can just be altered to omit the term at all, which may often be the best course - no need to have thousands of pages explaining the difference between the two entities. Though it pains me I'll even offer you county on its own meaning a traditional one, so long as the quote marks round the qualified versions go. ;) Morwen 22:03, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

--- I believe we have a deal. Morwen 06:50, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Counties, part II[edit]

But sadly the Wikipedia is poorer for it. The compromise means we are writing things like "The town is in the County of Kent, but not in the county of Kent." and expecting people to know that this means "The town used to be in Kent nearly 40 years ago, but isn't any more because the Kent boundary changed nearly 40 years ago." Ho hum. Pete 17:46, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Pre-emptive response to what 80.255 might say. The alternative "The town is in the County of Kent, but in not in the administrative county of Kent" is also unsatisfactory as it suggests that administrative counties have a lesser status in British geopolitics than historic counties, which, to be frank, is complete rubbish, and obviously so to all but the most obtuse of grumbling traditionalists.

This is patent rubbish, I'm afraid. The compromise means we are writing "The town is in the County of Kent (which is true), and in the administrative county of Greater London (as the case may be)". Both of these satements are true and reasonably unambiguous, although I would still prefer that "administrative county" were put in parentheses. The rest of you post is unfactual nonsense; the boundaries of kent did not change whatsoever in 1974 and the government made this crystal clear. Perhaps you don't care about truth and factual accuracy, but I do! Try googling "Bexley Heath, Kent" (or bexleyheath) and compare with "Bexley heath, London". The people of this town are certainly under no illusions as to which County they are in! The same is echoed in hundreds of places affected administratively only in 1974. As for administrative "counties" having a "lesser status", I have implied no such thing. Administrative "counties" are used for administrative purposes; Geographical (historic) counties are used for normal geographic purposes by most people; ascribing a higher of lower "status" to either is inapplicable since they have different uses. In the same way, if asked where I live I would not reply by stating the electoral ward, but the Town - this is not to say that the ward has a "lower status" - the term is simply inapplicable to matters not relating to its administrative purpose. I'm still removing rubbish about "former counties" which still exist and are absolutely current; wikipedia is very much the better for it as it now reflects correct, factual information, and not what was, to put it franky, complete balderdash. And if you have the strange idea that County boundaries somehow changed in 1974, then you are quite franky utterly wrong, and would be doing wikipedia no favours by entered downright misleading, unfactual and incorrect information. This is simply a matter of correct facts; I take it that you believe in encyclopaedias giving correct information? 80.255 18:09, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes you've made your position perfectly clear and you know my feelings on it. If I open a road atlas and look at the bit called Kent, is Bexleyheath in it? Pete 23:07, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Which part of the simple and unequivocal facts I have stated do you not accept? Road Atlases are completely irrelevant to this matter - they neither create boundaries nor are they concerned with either geographical or administrative divisions of britain - they are concerned with showing the road network! And, for your information, if you open a road atlas it will not show the current administrative boundaries. In short, your mentioning them is nothing short of obfuscation. Sp why are you so determined to pit yourself against simple, unequivocal facts? 80.255 23:18, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I would've thought that road atlases, such as the AA atlas in front of me here, which actually print the county boundaries in them(!) are of more relevance and authority than your Google search, the first few pages of which are full of identikit generic hotel pages which exist for every town in the country.
P.S. Just noticed that again you are suggesting that county boundaries change very frequently ("as often as the wind changes direction")... I've pointed out before that this an obvious falsehood... how many times has their been a change of boundaries in the last 100 years. Once a decade at the absolute most. Hmm... a real chore keeping with those 'rapid' changes. Please do not lecture me about simple, uniequivocal facts when you are peddling nothing but the sort all over the wikipedia (fake articles about Donisthorpe initially, then getting BNP protected through edit warring, now I see your ever so neutral line on Mugabe...).
Whether or not you personaly consider road atlases authorititive is immaterial. You have made a number of utterly false statements implying that post 1970s administrative "counties" somehow caused historic Counties to cease to exist, and you have as yet refused to accept that they are downright wrong. Instead, all you can do is bring up some irrelevant reference to a road atlas which "you have in front of you"! Then, whilst still not accepting your proven inaccuracies, you try to rope in another complete irrelevancy - my other contributions to wikipedia. You are grasping for whatever straws you can find to avoid facing the crux of this issue - perhaps you would make a good politician...
There have been many administrative boundary changes in the last decade of entities which are anthing but Counties. There will undoubtably be many more. It is a matter of common sense that an unchanging reference frame is a good thing for any article that provides reference, irrespective of whether or not you consider these changes to be infrequent enough to merit mention; on the contrary, by all means state administrative boundaries (and change them to keep up with the latest beaurocratic reshuffle), but it is quite pontless the base articles around such boundaries when unchanging and better understood boundaries already exist in the form of Counties. My bexleyheath example simply illustrates that the people of bexleyheath are in no doubt that they are in Kent - in other words, they understand the County system. The fact that Hotels and other bussinesses also use the correct County is no supprise, since such establishments will use the terms with which people are most familiar and which they best understand. These real people obviously couldn't care less about the contents of your road atlas, or any other small beaurocratic group which bears little relation to commonly used and commonly understood frames of geographic reference!
What exactly are you trying to prove? It can't be that (to take this example) Bexleyheath is no longer in Kent, since this is plainly and unequivocally incorrect. So please explain why exactly you would like to withold correct information from articles where it is relevant, putting in its place facts that are not true! Call me a "traditionalist", but I was under the impression that this was meant to be an encyclopaedia...
80.255 00:19, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
P.s. I've never written any "fake articles" about Donisthorpe. Perhaps you could provide example of these?
Oops sorry I should've checked Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress before writing that. According to that page, you completely made up a species of stalk, a physicist called Teighnditch and a type of squid and wrote about them. The Donisthorpe pages were just a little esoteric rather than vandalism. My apologies... anyhow now lets resume your rant about how apparently its me who's the inaccurate one.....
As I have already said, I am concerned with factual accuracy. The statment is question was "I've never writeen any fake articles about Donisthorpe". You respond to this with a whole lot of irrelevant details and then descibe the Donisthorpe articles as "a little esoteric". Well, "a little esoteric" does not equal "a fake article". But of course you know that very well - you're simply trying to obfuscate the issue yet again and avoid takling my question to you about the matter in hand (i.e. not about irrelevant and unconnected matters that occurded weeks ago)! I have never claimed that when I first discovered this website I didn't make a handfull of joke posts (which were obviously not intended to masquerade as real articles); I do, however, claim that I am correct in this matter. That fact that you continue to nit-pick irrelevant details yet still fail to produce any evidence whatsoever about the fundamental basis of my position leads me to think that perhaps you have already realised that you position is untenable, and are simply tried to keep squabbling about unrelated matters to try and mask this? If this isn't the case, I repeat my earlier question - one which you yet again avoided: what, if anything, are you trying to prove?
80.255 01:51, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Working from memory I got exactly which articles you had made up, I made a mistake, I then fact-checked realized my mistake and I apologized. I hope you will accept that apology. The central point I was making still stands of course. You, in the past, have deliberately tried to vandalize Wikipedia for reasons best know to yourself (there are plenty of places on the internet to make jokes, why try to ruin this place that is trying to be a bit more serious? ) I think this point is relevant when you keep accusing me of being "plainly and unequivocally incorrect", when I am not! The evidence that Bexleyheath is the London Borough of Bexley and not in Kent is utterly plain. Just visit http://www.bexley.gov.uk/ and http://www.kent.gov.uk/ or look at a moderately recent map which has county boundaries on it, or look at the area the Kent and London phone books cover or look where you council tax bill comes from if you live in Bexleyheath! All you've got is a Google search which is pretty bogus because it is full of link farm results that are breaking the Google PageRank algorithm. But yes I am fed up of repeating this because I now know you won't accept anything but your cherished idea that to refer to "Kent" means to refer to the historical county of Kent boundary rather than the new county of Kent. You disagree with all those sources, because you have your own preferred naming convention. I can't shift you off that. I'm not saying your use of terms is inconsistent, I am just saying it is out-dated and irrelevant. The point I have proved is that we shouldn't be listening to you when writing about counties in Wikipedia articles. Pete 09:37, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately your "plain evidence" simply doesn't exist, and yet you continue to hold up references which I have demonstrated refer to different entities. There is no such thing as the "new county of kent"; there is the County of Kent - which has remained unchanged since time immemorial, and which the government specifically stated did not change in 1974 - and there is the administrative county of kent, which was created in the 19th century, and which has underwent many boundary changes since. The fact that you seem unable to process this straightforward distinction shows that you have little grasp of the subject. What I have stated is fact and not opinion. What you have stated is garbled nonsense, in the most part. I also note that you still have answered none of my questions, and are incessently attempted to bring irrelevant matters into this discussion. You have proved nothing of sort of your last comment, nor have you disproven anything I have consistently maintained. Unless you can do so (which you cannot, since I am correct), I will assume that you have abducated this argument. 80.255 00:15, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

Hi, please note that the "This is a minor edit" tick box is for very minor formatting changes, spelling corrections and that sort of thing. More complex changes such as the addition or rewrite of a whole sentence should not be marked as minor, even though they may not appear to be that major in the context of the article as a whole. (I refer in particular to your revert of Bexleyheath. That sort of thing definitely doesn't as minor, as you already know another user is interested in that article and had wanted to write the article in a different way.) Thanks! Pete 07:29, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Right ho; Point taken. 80.255 18:11, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Rhodesian terrorists[edit]

Calling a Rhodesian faction "terrorist" cannot possibly be NPOV unless the faction calls itself that. If you want to get a point across about Mugabe's evils, cite some evidence, don't just add "terrorist" to every other sentence. Also, the previous government did plenty of bad stuff too, and it's definitely not NPOV to delete that. If a faction is terrorist, a straightforward factual accounting of its actions will get the message across sufficiently. Stan 22:13, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The terrorism article states that terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence, against the civilian population, usually for the purpose of obtaining political or religious goals".
There is no doubt that this accurately describes the actions of Mugabe's group.
The word is also correctly used to descibe Al-Qaeda, the PLO, the Khmer Rouge, and a host of other groups listed at List_of_terrorist_groups. If you consider it so "POV" then you should remove it from every one of those articles. The small number of possibly questionable actions of the Rhodesian government are in no way comparable to Mugabe's atrocities, genocides and oppression. To claim otherwise would be rather like spending an article on the nazis saying how bad the Weimar republic was - a little perspective is required, and it is not POV to use it! There was also several details comprising pro-mugabe POV in the article which are highly contestable but stated as fact, which needed to be addressed. I agree that a straightforward account of actions is what is needed - and that includes using correct terms like terrorism when appropriate. 80.255 22:32, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
If you read further in terrorism, you also see that there is much dispute over when it can be legimately applied, and it points out that governments frequently accuse insurgents and guerillas of terrorism irrespective of the facts. I also note that your method of addressing "pro-Mugabe POV" was to delete it entirely, which is not kosher; if you have counter-evidence for a contested claim, add it, don't just delete the stuff you disagree with. Your case will be stronger if you can cite scholarly works. Since you clearly have a strong anti-Mugabe stance (personally I'm mostly indifferent, just doing random policing here), you should realize that a truly NPOV article is likely to be unsatisfying; the pro-Mugabe stuff that such an article must have is always going to be infuriating. Stan 22:54, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I don't believe that correctly describing ZANU as "terrorist" is terribly "anti-mugabe", moverover it is simply a correct fact. A NPOV article should simply say what is true; it isn't contestable than ZANU adopted terrorist tactics. "Terrorism" is also a negative word, true, but to describe it as anything less is nothing more than a euphemism - something that has no place in an encyclopaedia. By all means it should be stated (as I have done) that ZANU rejected the "terrorism" label, but it should also be noted that this simply isn't borne out by the facts. That way the facts have been stated in a neutral manner, and various opinions are also stated to maintain NPOV and have been flagged as such. 80.255 23:05, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I'm not the only one taking exception to your content, so if you want it to survive the gauntlet of editors, it will have to be worded more judiciously, even if that means using what seem to you like euphemisms. BTW, your Rhodesia additions are semi-redundant with History of Zimbabwe, which ultimately derives from the CIA's factbook - I note that it doesn't use the word "terrorist", so if you're committed to this issue, you'll need to go work on that article too - readers are not going to be impressed by an internally inconsistent encyclopedia! Also, instead of editing out the minority-rule detail of Smith's tenure, you might consider mentioning it, since even though it was not the same thing as apartheid, it was a core issue for the insurgency and for the rest of the world too. Stan 23:26, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I will indeed word the changes more judiciously, although I do believe in calling a spade a spade, and I will not compromise the correct and factual description of terrorists as "terrorists". Have you ever seen photographs of the acts perpetrated by ZANU and friends? The babies burt alive? The women and children murdered in their homes? If that is "freedom fighting" or even "armed resistance" then my name's Tony Benn!
On the question of of Smith government - there were no constitutional barriers to prevent blacks running for election, and this is a most important fact that should be highlighted. The system was not apartheid, and nor was it terribly unjust as it stood. There were, in fact, several blacks in prominent positions well before ZANU et alii started their violence. Terrorists, of course, could not stand for election and could have no say in the running the country; this being the case, it begs the question: why did ZANU etc. persue a terrorist campaign? The answer is that the "core issue for the insurgency" was not minority rule, as you said, by marxism. ZANU had no interest in representative government - a fact which is borne out to this day by their various persecutions of minority groups, both black and white - their interest was simply imposing a certain political system on the country. This was backed and funded, naturally, by the soviet block, and the "minority rule" excuse they used also provided a handy but false reason for the British, who wanted rid of Rhodesia, to press for "independence" (although this certainly wasn't what the people of rhodesia got!). Isn't it funny how the pro-mugabe position suddenly goes pear-shaped when the real facts are examined? 80.255 03:51, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hello 80.255. I'll edit the Combat 18 article if I get a chance. To tell you the truth though, I'm bored with the pointless discussions here. I think wikipedia was probably set up by MI5 to keep computer-literate BNP supporters on their computers and off the streets! ;-) The funniest thing about all the anti-Nazi mob is that they're all white, and so are all their family, and so are all their friends etc., whereas I personally have got black, Asian and Jewish friends. One (extremely Westernised) Asian girl I know is even determined to join the BNP! I'd love to see the ANL fanatics trying to work that one out! Anyway, my advice to you, for what it's worth, is to leave the leftist idiots to it. Yes, they'll turn the BNP and related articles into pure ANL propoganda, but then anyone reading it will realise that it's just a load of POV bull***t and ignore it! I'm going to stick to real politics and do things that will actually help the party get more votes come the next elections. That means helping real people, not just tapping away on my keyboard!

Don't forget to vote

Empty redirects[edit]

Please don't create empty redirects unless you intend to fill them. Thanks Dysprosia 06:42, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I do intend to fill them, which is why they are specific redirects, rather than doing the same for all of them. I only have 10 fingers, however, and their movment is confined to subsonic speeds! The redirects alone provide information (associating a common name with a scientific name - something that most people probably wouldn't know...). However, I certainly have the intention of providing articles for those with redirects, and the redirects will remind me which to do first. 80.255 06:49, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
No, no, it's okay, just some people tend to create empty redirects, but if you're going to fill them, that's 100% ok :) Dysprosia 06:52, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Just be careful, because spot-editors often delete redirects that are empty. Kingturtle 22:25, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You will notice the Formica rufibarbis and Tapinoma erraticum are now started. The rest will follow. 80.255 22:27, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Counties, part III[edit]

Will you please stop messing about with the counties. You've been banned for this before and you are clearly upsetting people again with your changes to Bexleyheath, Birmingham, Warwickshire, Harborne etc etc. Angela 00:18, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

I am not removing correct information. Birmingham is not in Warwickshire. It may have been in the past and you may claim that if you so wish, but you are trying to write that Birmingham is in Warwickshire now which it blatently is not. Are you purposefully trying to make Wikipedia look stupid? Angela 00:28, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
Birmingham is in the County of warwickshire. It was also formerly (and simultaneously) in the administrative metropolitan county of the West Midllands. It is now a unitary authority area, but remains in the County of Warwickshire. It is also part of the lieutenency area of the West Midlands, although the metropolitan administraive county of the west midlands no longer exists. Administrative counties were created in the 19th century as different entities from historic counties. In 1974 boundary changes took place in administrative counties only, and the government stated unequivocably that historic County coundaries did not change, nor did they "cease to exist". All this is verifiable fact. To say that "Birmingham used to be in Warwickshire" is simply downright wrong. Which part of this do you not understand? 80.255 00:34, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
There are two things called "Warwickshire" - the historic county and the current adminstrative county. Birmingham is in one but not the other. If you two are going to argue about it, make it clear which one you mean. A link to Traditional counties of England, Scotland and Wales or Counties of England would help Andy G 00:55, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The agreement with Morwen consisted of refering to historic counties as "Counties" and to administrative counties as "administrative counties". I think this gives sufficient distinction to the difference, and morwen agreed with the compromise. However, I'm quite happy to modify this to include the links you mention: Counties and administrative counties - if you prefer. I thought this matter was settled after the morwen discussion, but it now seems that some other people want to provide deliberately misleading and flase information. I completely agree that distinction between the two different entities is the main issue. 80.255 01:07, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What have you got against refering to them as "historic counties" and linking them to Traditional counties of England, Scotland and Wales? This would make it much clearer and prevent people thinking the information was simply wrong. Birmingham may be in the historic county of Warwickshire, but it is not in Warwickshire. That is - it is not in what people now refer to as Warwickshire. Angela 01:14, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

I don't mind refering to them as "historic Counties", as long as administrative counties are consistently refered to as "administrative counties". The trouble comes when people start putting in all sorts of non-terms like "modern counties" or "former counties". To say "birmingham is not in Warwickshire" is very misleading - it is true only in the sense of warickshire as an administrative "county", whereas what most people think of when they see a "shire" is its historic boundaries; if we could agree that "Birmingham is in historic/geographical Warwickshire but not in administrative Warwickshire" then I can live with that. There's a great deal of nonsense using the word "formerly", too - historic Counties didn't change in 1974, nor did they cease to exist. Birmingham is in the historic County of Warwickshire. User:Pigsonthewing, however, keeps reverting to "Birmingham was formerly in the historic County of warwickshire", which is simply wrong - and he refuses to discuss it. The only entity that was formally abolished in the metropolitan county of the "West Midlands", which does no longer exist, so to say "Birmingham is in the Westmidlands" is also wrong. 80.255 01:39, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It is not necessary to refer to administrative counties in that way. They are called counties. Counties is the modern term for them. You are just trying to change it to push your own POV about the importance of historical counties. I have no intention of arguing over whether a place is in or was in some historical county or not. Birmingham is in the "area known as the West Midlands" whether you like you it or not. Whether it exists formally as a whatever type of county is irrelevant. No-one is saying BH is in that county; they are saying it is in the WM, whatever that term might mean. Angela 01:47, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
It is necessary to refer to administrative counties as such to avoid confusion. As you yourself have conceeded, Birmingham is part of two seperate entities - the administrative unitary authority area of Birmingham, and the historic County of Warwickshire. Warwick too lies within two different entities - the administrative county of Warwickshire and the historic County of Warwickshire. They are different, but both are current and both exist; refering to administrative counties as "counties" is simply confusing and potentially misleading - they are technically and officially called "Administrative Counties". "Counties" is not the "modern name" for them; it is simply a term used by people who are too lazy to use the correct term. Furthermore, it is ambiguous and imprecise.
Now, you object to "Birmingham is in the County of Warwickshire" because you (correctly) observe that Warwickshire is not the current administrative unit within which Birmingham is governed. So it is reasonable to say that Birmingham is in the historic County of Warwickshire - fine. But you then insist that Birmingham is also in the "West Midlands" - even though the West Midlands is not the current administrative unit in which Birmingham lies in - indeed, the West Midlands does not exist at all as an administrative county! It is a non-entity! This is the inconsistency of your position - you are objecting to something on one criteria, but not accepting an objection on the same criteria for something else.
Therefore, I suggest the following: references to administrative counties as "administrative counties"; references to historic Counties as "historic Counties"; references to the West midlands as "the former administrative metropolitan county of the West Midlands". All of these are technically correct, straightfoward and unambiguous. They do exactly what it says on the label, and they are not POV in any way. I hope you can agree to this. 80.255 02:07, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
No; I'm going with what is normal and common usage. You are going with something that pushes your own ideosyncratic point of view. Angela 02:16, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
An encyclopaedia should reflect what is accurate and correct, not simply what is "normal". For example, weight is commonly used to mean mass, but the article on weight rightly uses the correct meaning, although mentioning the incorrect one. Similarly, whilst by all means letting it be mentioned that "county" is often used to refer to administrative counties, wikipedia should adopt the correct terminology for articles. I really don't see why you are so opposed to something that is correct and accurate. It would instantly clarify the articles in question, and avoid misunderstnading and subsequent disputes over accuracy in future. 80.255 03:56, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
"the former administrative metropolitan county of the West Midlands" is superfluous. Why not just say "West Midlands". What else could it mean? This is what it is called. Look it up on a map. Angela 02:16, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
Three Points: Saying the "United States of America" is superfluous, since simply "America" is often used to refer to this country in common speech. However, America also refers to two continents, so wikipedia rightly uses the "superfluous" term to maintain accuracy and avoid ambiguity.
Secondly: Saying "the former metropolitan county of the west midlands" gives vastly more informative information than simply "the west midlands". That is what encyclopaedias should be about - providing information!
Lastly: the west midlands has only ever existed as an administrative area, and now it no longer exists. We wouldn't refer to Wessex, Troy or Dacia as current loci in articles, and the west midlands is no different. Contrast this with the reluctance of some people (not necessarily you) to include existant and current historic Counties - that deserves a nobel prize for incoherence...
In short, my suggestion alleviates all these problems; apparent superfluousness is necessary to maintain factual accuracy, and neither should this be sacrificed on account of "common references" - both of these points hold for all other articles, so why not here? Why are you so determined to oppose correct and unambigious terminology? 80.255 03:56, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Mind if I jump in on this one? In my opinion it is more informative to specify "former West Midlands metropolitan county" as "West Midlands" on its own can refer to the economic region which extends between the "East Midlands" (Derby / Nottingham / Leicester area) to the Welsh border. I'd also identify "North Midlands" as the Stoke-on-Trent area and "South Midlands" as around Oxford. That said, on consideration I view it as totally misleading to baldly claim that places which used to be within a county is still within a county of the same name but not the same boundaries. Wikipedia should be attempting to reflect the current situation - mention the history of the place if you wish, but do not claim what is contrary to the accepted normal usage. This debate has prompted me to take a look at some of the Welsh counties I'm familiar with, and I'm horrified to see that the Wikipedia entries for Denbighshire and Flintshire are completely wrong -- they plainly refer to the pre-1974 counties which bear little commonality with the post-1996 counties - Rhyl, St Asaph, and Rhuddlan are in Denbighshire, Bangor-is-y-Coed is I think in Wrexham (which is now a unitary authority of its own), and there's no detached part of Flintshire any more. I'm going to have to review all the Welsh county articles to see if they make any sense. -- Arwel 10:09, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the distinctness of the two entities. Both historic Counties and administrative counties are current, that is to say, they both exist at the moment. Post 1996 lieutenency areas are another matter entirely. Let me make this clear: Birmingham has never ceased to be in Warwickshire; in 1974 the historic County of warwickshire did not change, only the administrative county of warwickshire changed, and many a government spokesman has emphasized this. It is therefore misleading and downright false to claim that "Birmingham used to be in the historic County of Warwickshire. It used to be in the administrative county of warwickshire, but this is a different entity.
I would suggest moving Flitshire to Flintshire (historic) and creating Flintshire (administrative) to remove any confusion on that matter; in fact, I would suggest doing that for all Counties, it would certainly make things rather easier... 80.255 18:54, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

See his article here on wikipedia. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 23:25, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

Vandalism (sic.!) in Progress[edit]

Perhaps just a misunderstandng, but Birmingham and Harborne_Reserve are not in Warwickshire - please see recent changes); and Warwickshire. Andy Mabbett

    • Now it's looking more like vandalism - can someone please revert Warwickshire to the edit by (18:56, 16 Oct 2003 . . G-Man) Thank you. Andy Mabbett 23:49, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • see also messages on User talk:Pigsonthewing
      • Wow, I've never heard of a Warwickshire Irredentist before! I see on User talk:80.255 this character was engaged in a long argument about the borders of Kent a few months ago. Don't get too het up at the moment, as it may calm down in a day or two, but if you want to revert an old version yourself, go to "page history", click on the date and time of the version you want, click "edit this page" then save it. -- Arwel 00:18, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • See further down this page for further evidence when he was editing as User:80.225.73.197. Angela 00:21, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
      • See also switching of the order of metric and imperial measurements, on, for example, Warwickshire. Andy Mabbett 21:15, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • This is because the UK government uses acres, and as per the wikipedia guilines on units, the officially used units should be stated first. 80.255 21:46, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • Really? In what context? They've been using hectares in agricultural contexts for the better part of 30 years - I know, I used to have to fill in application forms for MAFF and convert our farm map from acres to Hectares! -- Arwel 01:52, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
          • I was refering to the boundary comission, who are the relevant authority in this case, not MAFF/DEFRA. 80.255 02:41, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
          • The Boundary Commissions are only concerned with electoral constituency boundaries. If you look at their spreadsheet at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/downloads/2000_Electorates.xls (linked off http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/general_info.asp) you will see that they list counties by their modern boundaries, not this historic county nonsense which you are promoting and which is damaging the reputation of Wikipedia for accuracy. As I think I said elsewhere, it's OK to note the old historic boundaries but it is completely misleading and doing a disservice to the readers to pretend that those boundaries have any contemporary relevance beyond determining the catchment areas of some cricket clubs. -- Arwel 23:23, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
            • As I have said many times, historic counties and administrative counties are DIFFERENT ENTITIES. Both exist, both are current. If you do not accept this then you are simply wrong - the government made is clear in 1974, and it continues to make this clear to this day. Historic boundaries are current and relevant boundaries which are quite distinct from administrative boundaries. I really don't see what you difficulty is in grasping this concept - that that town X can be in administrative county Y and historic county Z simultaneuously. Wikipedia should be accurate, of course - and accuracy means stating this fact; it does not mean stating POV rubbish and downright falsehoods about "former counties (sic.!)", "old counties" and "new counties". 80.255 23:46, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • To call this vandalism is quite ridiculous. I have explained the logic of my changes to User:Pigsonthewing, but he refuses to discuss them, let alone justify his reverts, simply deleting all reference to them. I am therefore unable to discuss this matter with him. I am quite happy to explain the reason for the slight changes in terms to any other, less childish, people, however. I already agreed on the best solution with Morwen, and this discussion took place before. What a pity it is that other people couldn't stick to this compromise, instead of replacing it with information that is misleading at best and downright incorrect at worst. 80.255 01:22, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I take his latest on User talk:Pigsonthewing as a threat.Andy Mabbett 01:12, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • What absurd nonsense, as anyone reading my comments there could tell. I suggested that this matter could be sensibly discussed; User:Pigsonthewing deleted the comment. I then asked User:Pigsonthewing whether he intended to continue childishly deleting comments and refusing to discuss the matter, and suggested that he enter into a sensible discussion rather than childish reversions backed up with no reasoning. Upon his deletion of this I observed that he has obviously chosen the latter option... and now that is a "threat"! I've never heard anything more ridiculous in my life! 80.255 01:22, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi :) Take a look at Wikipedia:Changing attribution, re User:129.234.4.10 Dysprosia 09:08, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Coventry[edit]

Re: Coventry. Technically speaking Coventry (at least the historic walled part of the city) hasn't been a part of Warwickshire since 1451, because king Henry VI granted Coventry a charter which made it a county in it's own right.

A book of mine called "A History of Warwickshire" by local historian Terry Slater, states that:

"In 1345 Edward III granted the town [Coventry] its first Charter of Incorporation, so that henceforth it was governed by a mayor and bailiffs and the influence of the priory came to an end. By the second half of the 15th century the townspeople had freed themselves from both manorial and county jurisdictions and in 1451 this was confirmed when Henry VI granted a Charter which made the city and its environs a county in itself."

I'm not sure whether this is still true or not, but to say that Coventry is a part of historic Warwickshire may not be correct. G-Man 22:21, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

1) administrative boundary changes, I expect; however, what do you define as "historic Warwickshire"? Was Coventry subject to being in Warwickshire administratively prior to 1888? I am 100% sure that there is not historic County called coventry! I would imagine what you describe was undone at some point.
2) However, I'll look into the matter and get back to you; by all means put information in the article in the meanwhile.
3) What is considered to be Coventry nowadays certainly spreads beyond the walled portion in any case, and this, whether you are correct or not about the above information, is certainly in Warwickshire. 80.255 01:31, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Eton[edit]

... moved to User talk:80.255#Eton.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.255/archive_1&oldid=573677808"