User talk:Morwen/archive1
Archived talk: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14 15. 16. Current talk: User_talk:Morwen
Arrival[edit]
Welcome Morwen,
You have done a good job so far in Wikipedia (a.k.a. 'Pedia or WP). I can see that you're a serious Wikipedian interested in improving our project. If you stay for a while, you'll discovered that collectively, we're a cooperative and friendly community. We are all here to learn, and hopefully can give something back. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include:
Just keep in mind that while relevant discussions and constructive criticisms and are welcome, anything unproductive and/or destructive in nature is not (see Wikiquette). Most importantly, we do not tolerate discrimination of any kind.
Who knows? Perhaps you'll soon become a Wikipediholic and make it into the list of Wikipedia:Most active Wikipedians! :-) --Menchi 09:38, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the welcome. I'm just settling in atm, but enjoying myself so far. Morwen
Hi! Nice work keeping a watch on the Tamil articles. Unfortunately jingoism is pandemic in Tamil land. The supposed oldness of the language, in particular, is a central theme of both political rhetoric and mainstream religious dogma, and the combination is particularly deadly! The other day someone told me with a perfectly straight face that Tamil is "billions" of years old :) If you suspect NPOV in any India-related articles in general, but aren't too sure yourself, feel free to drop me or Paddu a note. Thanks -- Arvindn 08:27, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks very much - I reacted without thinking much and was later quite worried about how I had handled it, but I figured the other person was quite unlikely to listen to reason and bluntness was called for. ;) -- Morwen.
Morwen, please do not added smart quotes or curved apostrophes to pages like you did on HMS Victory it is not a Wikipedia style convention. See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Punctuation_style. Thanks. Alex756 19:06, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Alex, please do not accuse people of things they didn't do like you did it is not nice. See: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=HMS_Victory&diff=1433186&oldid=1432455
- You will note all I did there was make change a blah's which was nasty to
- the nice blah's. I can assure you that no curved apostrophes were used at all.
- Thanks, Morwen.
Well, it is hard to see why you would do that in any case. It looked to me like a curved apostrophe which sometimes gets converted into something weird if you don't put it in with the nowiki codes. I have already ordered new glasses; I just haven't had time to pick them up in the last few weeks. Please do not take it personally, it just did not occur to me that someone would do that in such a complicated way. Please, it was just an honest mistake. Don't take it personally. I hope you accept my apology for the misreading. But putting in the apostrophe as you did would not be my obvious first choice. Did you try '''''HMS Victory'''''''s''''' giving one: HMS Victory''s. That would work with emphasis and italics. With the plain italics I guess the alternative is a little better: <i>HMS Victory</i><i>'s</i> resulting in: Victory's which gives on the italicized apostrophe unlike your attempt in which the apostrophe is not italicized (I guess that is what you were trying to do, no?). Once again forgive me for misreading your error. Alex756 03:57, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Ok. I didn't know a better way to do it, but I did know that way worked ;). My summary was even something to the effect of "is there a cleaner way to do this?". Thanks for telling me what it is.
- You are welcome. You also taught me a valuable lesson. I hope you stay a valuable contributor for a long time. Alex756
Hello Morwen, RE: your comments on county terms: when talking of ' administrative "counties" ' I have consistently put "county" in parentheses with a lower-case "C" in order to (correctly) emphasize the fact tha these entities are "counties" only by name - in the same way, perhaps, as the fins of a lungfish might be called "legs" but certainly not legs. This wasn't intended to in any way harm the neutrality of the article, but simply differentiate between true Counties and administrative entities that are not true Counties (and indeed which the government have repeatedly stated are not true Counties). I'm sure you can see that leaving out the quotation marks could give the misleading impression that administrative "counties" are of "equally validity and stature" to true Counties, and this is manifestly not the case - the latter are simply administrative boundaries which have been labeled "counties" for want of a better term. I certainly don't believe this could be contrued as bias. However, I don't mind using the term "administrative counties" if you still contest the above. Regarding Counties with a captial C - I believe this is justified because "The Counties" is a proper noun, whereas "the administrative counties" certainly isn't! Best regards, 80.255 16:37, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Much as I would be more than happy to debate in detail both the status and practical value (of the greatest importance today) of the 39 Counties as opposed to their historically insignificant blind ally (administtritive "counties"), I don't think it would be of much value in this discussion. The term "the Counties" is certainly treated as a propper noun by a very great number of people, not simply polemicists for the County system; finding examples of this at the drop of a hat is easier said than done, but I can attempt to do so if you don't accept it.
However, I will suggest what I consider to be a happy medium in the way that this matter is treated in articles. Since the term "administrative county" is basically government jargon, it is most justified to put it in quotation marks, quite apart from the fact that these "counties" are not counties, but that isn't relevant to this line of argument. The capitalisation of County in the geographical sense, in addition to its propper noun status I mentioned above, serves to further distiguish it from its administrative (poor!) relation. Whatever your your views on the matter, I'm sure you'd agree that different definitions of the term "county" should be clearly deliniated to avoid possible confusion.
Therefore, I would suggest something along the formula of: "xyz town is in the historic County of Suchandsuch and the "administrative county"/UAA/"metropolitan administrative county" of Such-and-such."
Of course, your beloved "administrative counties" change their boundaries every time the wind direction changes, so the above may need to be more involved, e.g. "xyz town is in the historic County of Suchandsuch. It was formerlly in the "administrative metrolpolitan county" of Thisandthat, but following the local government act of 1998 it has been administered as part of the "administrative county" of This-and-that."
I would consider this both an accurate representation of the truth, and a non-biased one at that. Any thoughts? Best regards, 80.255 21:41, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Very well: If County with a captial C is taken to mean Historic County, then (although it pains me too!) I'll refrain from parenthesizing bearocratic jargon terms such as "administrative county". Even so, I think the presence of quotation marks in that case helps dispell ambiguity, but I'm willing to compromise if you'll accept it. 129.234.4.10 22:15, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Pronunciation of Windsor[edit]
Hi, as someone who used to live there I would definitely not pronounce it "winzer". More like "Wind-ser" the way I say it (Essex accent) though possibly "win-za" with a Thames Valley accent. Have you noticed David Martland has also commented on it on my talk page? Perhaps it's best to leave it out or to say that "winzer" is how Americans would pronounce it (if you think that is the case). Angela 14:06, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
- I just checked my dictionary and that says wInZ@ so maybe that is the official way of saying it. Not how I'd say it though. I'm not too keen on putting in sampa translations anyway. That would seem more the function of a dictionary rather than an encyclopædia. Angela
- Americans aren't the only ones who'd say 'winzer'. So would I and I'm from Gloucestershire. You can't take local dialect as a guide here. Bristolians pronounce their town 'bristaw' but no pronunciation guide (except a local dialect one) would give that as correct. I suspect most would go for whatever is commonest usage in southern England as a whole. Chris Jefferies
History of British Socialism[edit]
Just saw your comments on Talk:History of British Socialism. Good luck with the original author of that piece; he has a lot to learn about NPOV. Fortitude! -- Viajero 13:23, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I saw you're comments, what do you make of this "historic counties" business?, I think the whole notion that historic counties "still exist" in any meaningful form is utterly silly myself G-Man 22:26, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
geography headers.[edit]
Morwen, please understand why the headers cannot be as you like them. with the headers in that format, it aligns the country names all the way to the left, confusing the alphabetization of the overall page. Kingturtle 11:15, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
geography headers.[edit]
Morwen, please understand why the headers cannot be as you like them. with the headers in that format, it aligns the country names all the way to the left, confusing the alphabetization of the overall page. Kingturtle 11:16, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- What I am referring to is the alphabetization of the overall categories. For example, if you look at version [1], the categories read: Education, Environment, Feminism, Food, Games, Gardens, Geography, Government, etc. In version [2], the categories read: Education, Environment, Feminism, Food, Games, Gardens, Geography, Afghanistan, Australia, Canada, Greece, etc.
- Do you see the difference? Kingturtle 11:24, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- This was the last version with your formatting: [3] . As you can see, in spite of the slight difference, the alignment still fools the viewer. Kingturtle 11:33, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Looking good! Kingturtle 11:42, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Administrative Counties of Scotland[edit]
Whilst it is true that there are traditional counties of Scotland, the newer unitary authorities that have existed since 1995 have NEVER been referred to as counties. Therefore I don't believe your new article on that subject is valid. Maybe you should delete it and re-list as Unitary Authorities of Scotland, although I think an article already exists.
JDH
Administrative Counties of Scotland Part Two[edit]
Hi Morwen,
See you made the changes. Don't mean to keep on about this, but I don't think the term county was even used up until 1995. In 1975 Local Government was reorganised into a two tier system of Regional and District Councils.
Therfore I think the term county died in Scotland in '75. Do not think either regions or districts were ever referred to as administrative councils, so I don't think it is even useful as a redirect article title.
Could be wrong, but don't think so.
JDH
Of course I mean I don't think regions or districts were ever referred to as administrative counties rather than administrative councils. :o)
JDH
Morwen,
Just to let you know that it is me that's being a pain in the arse about the Scottish counties stuff. Just set up an account so you can direct comments to me at my user talk page.
Hi Morwen,
A bit of a coincidence, and the first time it's happened to me in 3 months or more on Wikipedia - I started an article on Bicester as nothing existed, and then when I came to save it - you'd already made one! :-)
More counties![edit]
Hi Morwen, I see you did a small change to Flintshire this evening. I wouldn't bother doing any minor changes to the Welsh county articles if I were you -- despite 80.255's protestations about "historic counties" that argument is total **** as far as Wales is concerned, the 13 old counties were scrapped in 1974 and 11 of the names were recycled in 1996 with little commonality of area. I've put a few comments on Talk:Flintshire to say why the article is crap :)
-- Arwel 20:29, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Regarding Administrative counties of England. Although the East Sussex County Council and the West sussex County council were established in the 1888 act, the single county of Sussex remained until 1974. The county town of Sussex remained at Chichester for most of this period. I am a collector of Pears Cyclopaedias, and the 1948 edition lists the county town of Sussex as Lewes, whilst all previous editions show it as Chichester. I've not yet discovered how and why this should be. Mintguy 12:09, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Argh! Ruthin is the county town of the CURRENT Denbighshire. It was also the administrative centre of the old county of Denbighshire (county offices built in 1904, if I remember the plaque properly, currently being demolished and replaced by a flash and expensive new set of offices) but the county town if you're going back beyond 1888 was Denbigh! -- Arwel 12:27, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
AAAAGGGHHH Morwen, every time I go to put something on the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition article I lose it cos you are changing it at the same time. I've lost a lot of text twice now. Cannot be arsed trying again, oh well ho hum. :o( And all this after I helped you with the counties of Scotland too! Big Jim Fae Scotland
Don't worry about it Morwen, I wiz only kidding. :op
I'll probably put some stuff on the article later.
Some useful resources[edit]
Hi there Morwen I've noticed you've been making lots of articles about towns etc so I've found some websites which you might fing useful:
This website list the population figures for towns/cities in the UK: Most of them are, but unfortunately not all of the figures are accurate, so it's probably best to double check.
This website has detailed information about a fair number of towns. Which you might like to incorporate into some articles. There I hope that's of help G-Man 22:44, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Re: Coventry. I've found out something which you might find potentially interesting. Apparently Coventry ceased to be a county in it's own right in 1847, when it's county status was revoked by the "Boundary act of 1847"
see here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robert.orland/cov/main.html
I've tried to find out more about this boundary act but with little success. However if other counties have been abolished by this legislation, it would rather ruin the "traditional counties" brigade's arguments about the surposed unchanging/untouchable nature of the traditional counties. G-Man 18:37, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)