User talk:Morwen/archive5

Archived talk: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14 15. 16. Current talk: User_talk:Morwen

Indonesian Maps 2

Great work on the maps, but the Indonesian province ones would be better if the non-Indonesian land was shown in outline, rather than being represented as equivalent to the sea. Looking around at some other pages maybe it's a wikipedia policy to show only the political entity, but if so it's a bad one! Why hide useful information? Leaving out the costal context might be OK for land locked or completely borderless countries, but in a case like Indonesia it's just confusing. Pm67nz 11:22, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I had been considering that. More worrying to me is how hard it is to see some of the provinces. I added zoom maps for Bali and another one. If i extended it to cover north Borneo and east New Guinea the problem would only be worse. I will reconsider, possibly redrawing it with thinner lines. Morwen 12:04, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

How does it look now? Morwen 21:56, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Much better! Thanks. I don't think there's any need to include the rest of New Guinea, it was Papua that I had issues with first, and just having those few milimeters of PNG showing is enough. Pm67nz

National Park maps

Fantastic work on the maps, and on creating stubs for all those districts and traditional Scottish counties. Given your map-drawing talents, is there any chance of some maps showing the British national parks? Warofdreams 15:25, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Morwen. I'm writing because you edited Pearl Took after an anon had created it. I know you didn't write it, but I wanted another opinion to make sure I'm not overreacting. Pearl Took gets mentioned exactly once in LOTR, and never in any other book. I know Wikipedia is not paper and all that, but it seems to me that we should call a halt somewhere around here. I'd like to put this on VfD and strongly argue that it goes. What do you think? DJ Clayworth 22:29, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See talk page. I agree it is silly. Morwen 22:31, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Did you get to the bottom of the East Sussex, West Sussex thing? Mintguy (T) 10:20, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Aircraft table screwup

Thanks for fixing the dodgy markup of the table. You beat me to it! David Newton 14:54, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

yeah

Maps missing

Thanks for your great work on the maps, but some of them seem to be missing -- perhaps due to WikiMedia software problems? -- will you upload and fix them again? Sorry. --Kaihsu 17:54, 2004 Feb 6 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump - all images uploaded in four days in January are inaccessible. There are hundreds to reupload and I'm not going to do it until I am told they are permanently lost. Morwen 17:55, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

afghan maps!

Wow, awesome work on the Afghan maps! Seeing them has filled me with great joy! Kingturtle 23:47, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Croatian counties

Argh, I just noticed that we didn't pinpoint all the problems with Croatian county maps. For instance,

• the Zadar county no longer includes that much of Lika, but includes southern part of the island of Pag
• the Sibenik-Knin county includes the Knin area (obviously :)
• the area around Nasice is now part of the Osijek-Baranja county rather than Pozega-Slavonia

I believe that we need to synchronize maps fully with that image I previously mentioned. Sorry I didn't notice this sooner :/ --Shallot 15:24, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Bollocks. I'll redo everything from scratch soon.  :( Morwen 15:26, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'll help you out. I also found a nice graphic presentation of each county at the Unemployment Office web site, for example at http://www.hzz.hr/hzz.asp?ID=4065 I don't know if there's an English version but you can see the names on the right hand side and they seem to be fairly accurate to me (and up to date). --Shallot 15:28, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you do want to - you might find my working maps some help. See http://cryosphere.net/~morwen/cro.png and http://cryosphere.net/~morwen/cro.xcf

Thank you

Thanks for the maps on the districts of Albania Morwen. Good job! Dori | Talk 16:04, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

---

Newbie: Why do you keep reverting the edit's to Milton Keynes? I have lived in MK all my life, and believe what I have to say is authoritative. Please help!

Because it is not Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and is not in an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. I think you will find 'drunken idiots' infest most places in the country, Milton Keynes is nothing special. Morwen 22:32, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Morwen, in considering the above comment, you may want to look at the kind of knowledge this anon has shared over at [1]. Pakaran. 22:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

English counties

I understand your position, and now accept that the administrative counties should be primary. However, for your own sake, you will find that most traditionalists will amend the following:

• Middlesex was a county of England...
• Abingdon was formerly in the county of Berkshire

whereas they will (probably) not amend

• ... is one of the 39 traditional counties of England...
• ... was formerly the county town of Berkshire...

Therefore it is probably in your own interest to use the phrasing less objectionable to them. No doubt there will always be the traditional county fanatics, but most will be satisfied by a mention of the traditional county in the first paragraph in the present tense. Andrew Yong 16:47, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A compromise I had been trying to using is "traditionally with the borders of". However, this got reverted to "is within the traditional county of" as it apparently 'misleading'.

I suspect I may be overreacting. I am perfectly happy to talk of Middlesex and Westmorland etc in the present tense, but as areas, not as counties. I am aware of the legal argument that the 'ancient and geographic counties' were not amended or abolished in 1888, but I regard that as an interesting historical footnote, not a basis of geography...

However, the technical legal argument seems to me to be irrelevant to the ABC's motivations, if not their claims. I see the real reason as rejection of Parliament's authority to define counties. If the 1888, 1965 or 1974 acts had purported to abolish the historic counties, I doubt they would lie silently. This is evidenced by the rejection of claims that places like Islandshire became part of Northumberland in 1844. It certainly didn't become part of the 'admninistrative county' of Northumberland in 1844 since no such beast was created until 1888. We could perhaps invent a new type of county, but that multiplies entities needlessly.

Apologies for my ramble. I may have had a point when I started; if so I have forgotten it. Morwen 17:49, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

To me the intent is irrelevant and what is important is the actual legal situation. Having looked it up, it is not as obvious as the ABC claims. The parts of the 1888 that deals with counties and preserves the traditional counties are completely repealed and superseded, though there is no formal abolition. The 1972 Act simply says "For the administration of local government England and Wales shall be divided into ... and these areas shall be known as counties". It goes on to define those counties in terms of existing 'administrative counties', so they were obviously aware of the proper term at the time. To me this means either a) they intended to replace both the administrative counties and traditional counties with 'counties' (though if so why not say so by abolishing the traditional counties?) or more likely b) they regarded the traditional counties as exactly that, counties as determined by tradition, not law, and having no legal status. This is consistent with the 1974 statement. However, what they intended is (to a lesser extent) also irrelevant. What they failed to do is specifically deal with the traditional counties, so the position is ambiguous.

To my mind, calling them 'traditional counties' or 'historic counties' rather than 'counties' deals with the problem in a very Wikipedia-like fashion. 'Counties' without anything else is clearly defined by the 1972 Act as meaning the post-1974 metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties. Andrew Yong 01:46, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I suspected something like that might be the case. Thanks for the research. One other interesting thing I discovered is that the 'traditional counties of Great Britain' are actually a chimera. Although each county individually has been used at some point in the past, there has never been a time where the 86 were actually used for Lord-Lieutenancy all at the same time, and no others were.

I'm ok with the term 'traditional county' using sparingly. However, this does not extend to accepting 'Somerset is a traditional county, ceremonial county and administrative county in south-west England' at the start of the article. [User:Morwen|Morwen]] 07:07, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

Just as we thought we'd put the counties thing to bed......

Anyway changing the subject, I wanted you're opinion about something.

I was thinking about writing on the intro to the Coventry article something about the population of the surrounding area. like:

Coventry is a city in the West Midlands of England. With a population of 300,848 (2001 census) around 800,000 people live in the wider Coventry and Warwickshire area, Coventry is the tenth largest city in England, and is a twin city to Dresden.

Coventry and Warwickshire effectively form part of a single area and are often spoken of as such, and most of the Warwickshire towns surrounding Coventry are effectively dormitary towns for Coventry and thus form a sort of "Greater Coventry" metropolitan area. Although no such an area exists officially. Do you think I should add it? after all it is common on articles about cities to add the population of the surrounding areas G-Man 18:39, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. We could do with an overall article on these types of things - the Nottingham metropolitan area is quite huge, for example. I think I will start one. Morwen 18:42, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

OK done it G-Man 18:50, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually I've heard there are plans to merge the Coventry and Warwickshire police forces, as apparently Warwickshire police force is one of the smallest in the country and is not viable, I dont know if you've heard anything G-Man 19:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No such a thing as the "Coventry Metropolitan area" officially exists, although it effectively does in real life so should it be described as such do you think?.

Changing the subject, the map and fact box thingy you put in on the Birmingham page, doesn't fit in at all with the text and looks a bit of a mess with the text squeezed up alongside it. Do you thik it might be a good idea to have a link to the map rather than putting it on the main article space to improve the layout?. G-Man 00:15, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The box stays. If you want to help improve the design, feel free. Morwen 07:58, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

I've tinkered with it and made it a bit narrower. Actually I'm probably going to Birmingham next week, and I was thinking of taking some photos, do you have any ideas of things to photograph? I was thinking of getting a shot of the skyline as a main picture, and possibly a few of the canals do you have any other suggestions.G-Man 13:46, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Redirected slurs

Morwen, do you think Hate speech is better than redirecting to List of ethnic slurs? I had leaned to the latter, but am of course open to having my opinion changed. :) Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 20:20, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have no particulra opinion. I could remember the first but not the second. Probably the latter would be better. Morwen 20:21, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Ok -- hope I didn't seem like I was "correcting" you at all. Just trying to figure out a way of aiming all this stuff at the same place (honestly, I hope the anon cuts it out...my day is not brighter for having to view these detestable words) Thanks for responding so quickly, Jwrosenzweig 20:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for zapping the vandalism on my userpage. --No-One Jones 10:35, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Another maps kudos

Sorry to fill your talk page with spam, but thought I'd drop a line thanking you for all the maps. =] They really make some of the articles make more sense to those of us who have no conception of where some things are. --Delirium 12:36, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Swinoujscie

May I ask why you are aiding known vandal Wik in distorting the page? As the talk page illustrates Swinemünde is a far more common name. Take a look at the page history, Wik has added no info to the page and is merely pushing an agenda. Jor 19:46, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I strongly advise you to not mischaracterise content disputes as vandalism. Personally I do not really care about the article, but I do care about people wrongly calling other people vandals. I think you owe Wik an apology for the namecalling. Morwen 19:50, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks from the known vandal. --Wik 19:50, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

sorry

I would like to apologize for my childish deceptions. I did not mean to hurt you or any other Wikipedian. I would like to wipe the slate clean. This is a sincere apology, and a promise that I will not decieve you again. Once again, I am truly sorry. Thank you for your support.

--- The map on the Lewes page is for Lewes district and not the town of Lewes. I presume that a similar issue occurs o a number of other pages. Mintguy (T) 16:44, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

yes, I have been seeking them and splitting the pages. In some cases its not obvious what to do - Chester, for example. Morwen 16:45, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

---

MediaWiki:Carribean

Just a quick note, it is Caribbean... Carribean is a typo. =P --Maio 00:38, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC

Oops. I always make that one. Morwen 07:17, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi Morwen, I noticed you've added {{msg:South_Asia}} in the India page. Where do I get a complete list of the {{}} options ? Jay 07:06, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom messages Morwen 07:17, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Peerage

Here's the link I used to find out about Nolan, it's got pretty much every holder of a peerage in the UK and Ireland through history. May take a while to load though!

Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page fabiform | talk 21:37, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Plz check the Talk:American_University_of_Beirut page. Thanks. May05 13:24, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I had no idea how to clean up the Lawrence Oates mix-up. Thanks for your help. Can you explain to me what the best way to handle that type of situation is ? No Guru 08:53, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are welcome - in future you can use the 'move this page' feature, which is on the left hand side of the screen. Morwen 08:56, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you No Guru 09:00, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Westminster

I've added a lengthy gazetteer of places, areas, localities and transportation links (all pointing to other Wikipedia articles) to Westminster. What do you think? Is this something that could usefully be done for the other London boroughs as well? -- ChrisO 13:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oops, I meant City of Westminster. -- ChrisO 15:53, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Looks splendid. Morwen 16:19, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Typo in one of the maps

Hi Morwen, looks like there was a typo in the Image:AlbaniaNumberedPrefectures.png map. See Talk:List of Albanian prefectures. I'd appreciate it if you could upload a fixed version. thanks, Dori | Talk 14:30, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

---

No apostrophe in Sgt Peppers

Greetings Morwen. Poor form indeed, but the Beatles did not put an apostrophe in the name of the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album. See the cover. Moriori 21:03, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Terrible. ;) Actually, they did, just not eough ;)Morwen 21:05, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

---

"Traditional" counties again!

Just a heads-up that user:62.188.4.102 has been editing a lot of the Welsh counties to resurrect the old entities again. :( -- Arwel 13:00, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to let someone else fight that battle. This IP seems to be making OKish edits to other articles though. Morwen 13:08, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

---

The NWFP and FATA seem to be mixed up in your Pakistani maps. --Wik 23:27, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Zviad Gamsakhurdia RfC

Hi Morwen - When you have a moment, could you please leave a comment at Talk:Zviad Gamsakhurdia#Request for Comment? You protected that article some time ago due to Levzur's continual deletions of content. Tannin has had to protect it again and there is an RfC ongoing at the moment - your views would be very welcome. -- ChrisO 11:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Southwark link orgy

I've added what looks like a zillion links from London Borough of Southwarkto other related Wikipedia articles. See if you can think of any more. ;-) -- ChrisO 13:13, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We seem to be using GFDL as the default for images that they have taken, as that's the box that they've ticked. Secretlondon 13:53, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

However, people also tick that box when uploading fair use images, noncopyrighted images, etc, where they copyright holder definitely hasn't uploaded under GFDL. Maybe the upload text to state that (or slashing and burning and replacing) Morwen 14:07, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Yorkshire

I can see your point about Humberside, but I don't like the "Humber" solution much. I guess the point of the line was to list the 1974 counties which formed the basis for drawing up the region. My best solution, I think will be to put in a link to 1974 counties, but to be honest I'm not that happy with it, so feel free to edit away. Warofdreams 17:32, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I have to say those new box thingies youve been putting in are very ugly, especially on short articles, isn't there some way that say they could be collapsed as defualt but openable, rather like you can collapse TOC's. G-Man 23:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Make the articles longer, then. Morwen 23:05, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thats not always practical, there often isn't much to say about a place. G-Man 23:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Morwen, keep on with the great work you're doing on the maps. I can imagine how much work you put into them, I'm an illustrator too. I would have been very hurt by the nonsense phrase "very ugly" from G-man. G-man, have some thought for the person you're writing to and phrase your remarks more gently. The maps are perfectly good looking and to hide them from initial view would be silly.

Adrian Pingstone 09:40, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to the maps their OK, I was refering to the region boxes. I apologise if I've caused offence, I was tired and in a bad mood that day and perhaps could have been a bit more polite.

I was merely wondering if their was a better way too arrange them, to make them smaller. For instance on the Basildon article the box takes up more space than the text, and should perhaps be added to a seperate article about the district rather than the town. I am merely trying to make articles look nice, I wasn't trying to hurt anyone, I realise a lot of work has been put into them. ::::G-Man 23:36, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Understood, I was a bit bad-tempered too.

Adrian Pingstone 09:24, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maps for South/North Yemen

There is a small problem with the maps you uploaded for North and South Yemen; they show Eritrea as an independent country, which it wasn't until 1993. - Sandman 13:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик

I've replied to a post by Mikkalai at Wikipedia:Village_pump#Transliterations_from_Russian. I've posted a proposal there and created a place for discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(places)#Transliteration_of_Russian_place_names. as a place to discuss all this. I hope you will join us there. -- BCorr ? Брайен 03:24, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Reagan

Why did you revert 66.32.141.50's edits? They seem correct. Maroux 15:43, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)

Because it made the next sentence nonsense. Morwen 15:45, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Rightho. Maroux 16:07, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)

---

Re: "move this page" feature

thanks! Kwertii 22:37, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

L'viv region

• Hi. I gave you one wiki (so now you have 4) because I like your many geographical stubs and maps. Especially for L'viv region, which now I tried to turn into a basic article. If it wasn't created first as a stub by you, I wouldn't ever bother to google it and find info about this Ukranian region :) Optim 12:36, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Please note though that I am a girl. [everyone seems to make this mistake] Morwen 12:37, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I am so sorry for my mistake. I usually take care to write "his/her" or "he/she" when I refer to somebody I don't know, but I had the wrong impression you were a boy. Optim 13:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Hello. Might I ask why you have noted the screenshots of Pokemon games as GFDL? I presume you don't own the copyright to the games or the characters?. Morwen 17:39, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

I don't, in fact. Thanks. I fixed it. Fibonacci 01:18, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Scottish Maps

Morwen, where did you get the maps for the Scottish regions and unitary authorities from? Would it be possible to get some for the 8 electoral regions for the Scottish Parliament? Big Jim Fae Scotland, March 1st 2004

Hi - i'm back - on colossus. Using mozilla 1.1 which doesn't have chatzilla. Will sort out an IRC client in a bit. Secretlondon 19:35, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

Districts of England (again)

Yes, definitely addictive :-)

Good work on the seperating districts and towns. Just wondering, when naming the articles, how do you decide which are districts and which are boroughs?

I go and see if the council is called a district or a borough council. Of course, this doesn't help for the ones just called council. I suppose there is a list somewhere. I will make (district) redirect to (borough) for every one eventually.  ;)

Also, don't forget to change the links from List of English districts by population, List of places by Jedis, Districts of England and from the appropriate county. Warofdreams 22:35, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm gonna do that once I've finished my entire lot. By the way, what do you think I ought to be doing with districts like Canterbury (borough) where the council is called X city council, but covers towns other than X. I see three options

1. have Canterbury about the town of Canterbury, have it link to City of Canterbury about the city/borough
2. have Canterbury about the city/town of Canterbury, have it link to Canterbury (borough) about the borough/city
3. have Canterbury be about the city/borough of Canterbury, have it link to Canterbury, Canterbury about the town.

The other inconsistency is with how we treat London Boroughs. IF we have London Borough of Southwark, maybe it would be better to have Borough of Guildford? Morwen 22:40, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

I think Borough of Guildford is a good format. It would also fit well with the County of Peterborough format.

Of the three options, I would prefer 1, although 2 is also ok. I think 3 doesn't have the article a new user would expect at Canterbury, and Canterbury, Canterbury is very awkward (we have been trying to avoid this, eg. Bromley, Bromley is now at Bromley). As for 2, strictly speaking, the city is the borough, so City of Canterbury shouldn't link to the town, even if that seems obvious.

So do we want to edit Canterbury to make it say its not a city, but the borough it is part of, is? The other question is where do we draw the line. Should Bradford be about the town of Bradford and another article be about the city/borough? Morwen 22:56, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

Please stop messing up Eastern Germany. It's a completely different article than East Germany, and the term has a different meaning. Nico 18:16, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) --- Thanks. Nico 18:17, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

One example doesn't prove anything. Of course the term is used in the other meaning as well by some people. Nico 18:30, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure what the primary use is in English, but I have certainly seen it used as the name of the lost territories. There should be an article dealing with the issue, and it should not redirect to the DDR article which have nothing with this historical term to do. Nico 18:37, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Names

Disgussion moved from User Talk:G-Man

Hello. We have two standards already for borough names. Halton (borough) or London Borough of Camden. I don't think there is any need to create a third. Morwen 19:39, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Also, I take it you don't object to my splitting Wolverhampton and Coventry too? Shall we do the same for Birmingham? I guess we should make the article about the city be at City of Birmingham and leave Birmingham about the town. Morwen 20:02, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Er yes I do actually, I dont get it surely common sense dictates that coventry should be about the city of coventry, surely that is what people will expect when they look up 'Coventry' G-Man 20:04, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why city status for a borough makes any difference. If Coventry should be about the borough, then so should Walsall and Dudley. This is why I have carefully avoided splitting articles about metropolitan boroughs so far. Morwen 20:06, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Surely there are two entities known as 'Dudley' the town of D and the borough which consists of several towns, therefore it is logical that they should have seperate articles.

Common sense dictates that Coventry and Birmingham should be about the cities, that is certainly what most people mean when they look up those articles.

Is there a seperate town of 'Coventry' I don think so. G-Man 20:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm really going to have to move the Coventry article back G-Man 20:21, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Coventry is a bad example. What about Wolverhampton? By your current argument, Wolverhampton should have been about the town until the borough achieved city status, when it should have been moved to Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, and Wolverhampton (borough) to Wolverhampton. I find this absurd, and hope it is misrepresenting your position. Morwen 20:23, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Now you've completely lost me G-Man 20:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Simple enough question - what should Wolverhampton be? An article about the town or the borough/city? And what should it have been before Wolverhampton became a city? Morwen 20:29, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Well as a rule of thumb an article should be about whatever is the most common use of that term. So Dudley should be about the town of D as that is what is most commonly associated with the word. Whereas the term Wolverhampton and Coventry are always used in referance to the cities, that seems perfectly logical to me. I wasn't aware that there was a separate town of Wolverhampton G-Man 20:34, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah, so how did you figure out which are 'most commonly associated' or are you basing it upon what _you yourself associate with? Morwen 20:46, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Surely Coventry and Wolverhampton are synonymous with the borough/city. Whereas Walsall and Dudley districts are made up of several seperate towns which each have there own identities but have been lumped together for local government administration. Somebody from Stourbridge is hardly likely to say "I come from Dudley" (the borough) he would say "I come from Stourbridge". Whereas someone from Wolverhampton (the city) would say "I come from Wolverhampton", G-Man 20:55, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see. What about someone from Sutton Coldfield? Would they say they are from Birmingham? I understand many of them would fiercly deny it. Morwen 21:00, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Good point, but I dont think the two things are quite comparable. Birmingham is a city and is generally recognised as a single place, not a borough of seperate towns lumped together for local government convenience. It has been absorbing places which were once seperate towns for many years. For example Edgebaston and Aston were historically seperate towns from Birmingham until 1889, and for many years the redidents of Edgebaston and Aston resented being made part of Birmingham.

IMO if a place has city status it should be treated as a single place, whereas ordinary local government boroughs which have no identity should be treated as just that G-Man 21:20, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't like city status determining whether we split or not. If, say, Dudley were to be granted city status in 2005, would you then agree to merging the articles? What about City of York, should we merge that with York? I propose that for metropolitan boroughs we just generally don't split ever. Morwen 21:23, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it had been agreed that when a town and local government district shared the same name the articles should be split. So I was rather surprised that you objected to my splitting of the Dudley page, I thought I was doing what had been agreed. I dont quite see why metropolitan boroughs should be treated differently to normal boroughs, unless their cities.

I agree the York thing is a bit of an anomaly, but it seems that this local government stuff is such a complete mess that whatever we do we create a certain number of anomalies.

I think we should decide these things on a case by case basis, for instance it makes sense to split the Dudley article, but it would be rather silly to split the Birmingham article. I dont think we should try to apply a single rule to everything as it will inevitably create anomolies. You have to agree the present Dudley/Walsall articles are far from satisfactory - trying to cover two seperate entities on one article. G-Man 19:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question, would you merge Dudley if it achieved city status? Morwen 19:10, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

It seems rather unlikely that it would, but I surpose logically I would, there has after all been a precedent Stoke-on-Trent, prior to 1925 what is now Stoke was comprised of about five different towns which were merged together to form a single city.

If Dudley were made a city then the seperate articles about Stourbridge etc could still exist as long as they said they were part of the city of D, in the same way the Sutton Coldfield article does. G-Man 19:17, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Right, I regard that as deeply unsatisfactory. City status is just a ceremonial symbolic thing, and the process for obtaining it a bizarre monarchic relic... All it entitles a borough to is the right to have itself a "City Council" and a Lord Mayor. It doesn't by itself alter identities or geography. In absence of a good way of determining that doesn't rely on untested assumptions about what 'everyone thinks' i think we should just leave them unsplit. Morwen 19:23, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you about that, an ordinary local government district is merely an area used for the efficient delivery of local services and are not designed to be thought of as a "place" - have you ever heard anyone say "I come from Sandwell". Whereas if it is given city status it is designed to be thought of as a single place. That's certainly my opinion anyway. G-Man 19:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So Brighton and Hove is a single place? I see. Well, what do you think about Lancaster. The city boundaries are huge compared to the town, and cover Morecambe etc! Morwen

As I have already said these things should be decided on a case by case basis, and common sense should be our guide. I have already said I dont think trying to apply a single set of rigid rules to everything is very sensible. I do wish the government wouldn't make things so complicated. Perhaps we should try to get other people's opinions. G-Man 19:58, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Brighton and Hove, Lancaster etc seem to be the exceptions rather than the rule, of course Brighton and Hove isnt a "place" but Coventry say clearly is. I say it would be sensible to apply different criteria depending on the circumstances. Any thoughts? G-Man 20:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Have you given up on this disgussion or something?. Actually having thought about it regarding Dudley. If Dudley (borough) were to become a city, then it might be better to use the arrangement used with york, ie Dudley is a town within a UA called the "City of Dudley". G-Man 19:10, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's no point having this discussion - you are making it up as you go along, and I have a suspicion this is motivated by an attempt to remove my maps. Morwen 19:38, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

I dont know where you've got that idea from, why would I want to remove your maps?. I dont know what you mean by "making it up as you go along" you havn't answered any of my above points. G-Man 19:43, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, because you keep changing your mind about whether city status is magic, etc..

I don't know why you are removing my maps. However, its pretty clear you are

• [2] rm map this is already shown on the Greater Manchester page
• [3]

I forget where, but there was another one where someone had replaced the map with a link saying click here to see a map, which was even more bizarre. Morwen 19:50, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Well firstly, I have no objection to your maps, you have obviously put a lot of work into them. I only want to see them put in the right place where they are applicable.

Regarding Manchester, I didn't think a map showing Manchester within Greater Manchester was terribly helpful, as anyone trying to look up that information could see it on the Greater Manchester page, but now you've put in a map showing M within England I have no problem with it, as it is more use to the average reader. I probably should have disgussed it with you first instead of removing it so I apologise.

Regarding Oxford, someone had put loads of pictures in and made a cluttered mess, and I intended to try and sort it out, I never intended to remove your map permanently if you look I put it back in again in a different place so it would fit better, however I dont know how to deal with all the new image markup etc so the Oxford page is still a mess, I'm hoping someone else will sort that out.

Regarding other stuff I'm saying each case should be treated differently depending on the circumstances, I havn't changed my mind as such. G-Man 20:06, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Old English language

Thanks for restoring the text, I can only guess for some reason my browser did not send the full text across. Jor 14:39, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Middlesbrough and Stockton

Hi. I can see that in the months I was away from Wikipedia many changes have been taking place wrt the nomenclature for bits of the UK. I have not been following this debate in detail so please forgive me if I am reopening horrendous areas of argument that you thought were dead!

I was confused by the description of Middlesbrough and Stockton as counties in their current state. I understand that they are unitary authorities but I didn't think this made them counties per se - does anyone actually refer to the "county of Middlesbrough" for example? It would sound very odd to my ears but I acknowledge it is not impossible. Could you please educate me about the logic behind this language? Thanks very much Nevilley 10:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you. Oh dear - it's more complicated than I thought. Isn't it always? I've corrected the error I introduced in Stockton.

Thanks for giving me the reference.

I wondered:

(a) is this situation (ex-Cleveland counties) unusual, or is more or less everything a county at some deep legal level? I'm thinking of all the other weird (to me) ones that have popped up in the 90s which seem often to be the names of towns, Darlington or whatever - are they all actually legal counties too? - and

(b) if it is NOT unusual, is it documented somewhere in the wiki so that people like me floundering in ignorance about the general siutation may be educated, and

(c) if it IS unusual, is it worth explaining it on the relevant pages or in a page linked to them, so people like me do NOT come swanning in changing things because they can't believe there could be such a thing as a "county of Middlesbrough"!?

Sorry if this is a terrible bore for you! :) Nevilley 10:40, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Administrative counties of England covers it reasonably well. All the unitary authorities apart from the metropolitan boroughs and the districts of Berkshire are counties in their own right. I'm not sure we need to mention this everywhere, though. Morwen 10:43, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

OK and thanks. I will not worry about the general situation! I might try and clarify it where I see it as unclear but there again I might not... :) Nevilley 10:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maps

What tool(s) do you use to produce them and where do you get the data from? I think I may start doing some of Spain, for example. Pfortuny 11:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The gimp, and what data? I just trace CIA maps ;) Morwen 11:25, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I shouldn't do any more for the moment - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps is going to set a new format for them. Morwen 11:26, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

OK, but does the CIA include the borders of England Counties? or do you do it by hand? Pfortuny 11:29, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Those I traced from other maps. Morwen 11:32, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Whouahhhh. We did duplicate work, I just finished with a new map of Germany with better border lines as well, and now I see you uploaded the same one hour ago. But at least mine has the boundaries of the neighboring countries as well, and the new coloring scheme. I guess I will upload my empty and full-scale map as on Wikipedia:Blank maps anyway. andy 23:29, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Districts / Boroughs

Just wondering, what should be done when the district/borough consists of the town of the same name and nothing much else, such as with Corby. Should it be left as it is or split do you think?. G-Man 21:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've left a semi-coherent question for you about districts and boroughs at Wikipedia talk:List of English districts to disambiguate. -- Oliver P. 02:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(City of) York

Hi Morwen,

WRT your response to my changing the description of [York] from town to city, I've thought about it and also looked at previous discussion of this issue on your talk page. My question is: what is "York" if it is not the same thing as the "City of York"?

TTBOMK there is no York Town Council or similar, and no body but the City has any legal or administrative existence, or any defined borders. The new City of York was created not as an agglomeration of different places (which might warrant a collective entry), but because the single physical TOWN of York (ie. the urban area) had outgrown its previous borders, and it was considered desirable to keep it under unified control.

Regardless of the legal change of status, the reality was that the (pre-existing) City Council expanded its jurisdiction to a larger area, and simultaneously took over some extra functions within its new boundaries. Surely it is more natural to say that "York has grown" than that there is some abstract entity called "York" within another one called the "City of York"?

Legally, administratively and practically, I would suggest that the town and the city are one, or else the town cannot exist! I am (always) very much open to counterarguments, though!

Best wishes, Cambyses 04:02, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• bed

Yeah - zonked this morning - just finishing my coffee then going in.

---

Picture Import

Have been offered to "...show this picture on Wikipedia for one calendar year...". Could you tell me whether this is worth the effort, and how to enforce that it's not used by any third party, and not used past the time limit. --Palapala 11:45, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

you too... ;)

Do you happen to have the same problem, or even a solution to it :)

---

Great maps!

Very nice work you are doing on the subdivisions of countries and their maps. I am stealing them for the Dutch wiki ;p Waerth 08:18, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Very nice maps, I think too! Do you have any tip to give me, I'm thinking about doing the same map of Sweden counties (or whatever they are translated into english, province, land, etc.) Are you basing the bitmapped images from a vector graphic file? What line thikness are you using? Is there a color standard ? i.e. red for counties, blue for province, gray and green for countries, etc.// Rogper 20:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Maps - HTML query

Trampling through wikiland as only a newbie can, I came across your maps on Alnwick_(district) and Northumberland, and, err, straightened up the HTML. Err. Before noticing why you had the colspan=2 in. I'm happy to go back and reinstate the colspans. However it did seem to me that you were consistently not closing the first cell & row of the table with /td /tr... and so this is just a reality check ... am I missing something?

--Tagishsimon

Apparently so: /td Optional in HTML. Required in XHTML. I guess they can all be changed automatically should wikipedia ever decide to point to a new DTD... --Tagishsimon 10:52, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re: Case

The Genitive and the Possessive are not the same per se, true; articles are written generally, not from the point of view of English. In English, the possessive case is a type of the genitive (thus, a possessive genitive), and today indeed the only type in use. A genitive in English (only remaining in interrogative and personal pronouns, I believe) always denotes possession, and possessive pronouns are always pronouns in the genitive case. Hence the original article was right: my is the genitive case of me, and is thus a genitive pronoun – and consequently a possessive pronoun. I think. :) Sinuhe 17:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

phobia

I think you're right. I've always thought the opposite of a phobia is a mania. -- Decumanus 18:24, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Free state

wouldn't it be an improvement to move Free State to Free State (German),
and the content of Free state (disambiguation) to [[Free State]]?
--Ruhrjung 18:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

GeekPhilosopher.com photos

I'm afraid we can't use the original photos by GeekPhilosopher.com. Their copyright page states: "These photos are labeled 'Photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com - your premier source for free stock photos.' We took these photos and we own the copyright. You are free to do whatever you want with these photos except redistribute them." [4] (emphasis mine) That is, of course, incompatible with the GFDL. This does not apply to photos on their site which do not have the "Photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" text. Please delete any images which are in violation. Alternatively, you can try to contact them about the GFDL, but seeing their big "Photos cannot be posted for redistribution" notice on the frontpage I don't think they would be cooperative.—Eloquence 21:28, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

if we can't use them, neither can de, which i got the image from. I note that we have absolutely thousands of images that aren't GFDL. Morwen 21:29, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Re: images with explicit restrictions on third parties, Jimbo has said several times that such pictures should not be allowed - check the lengthy fair use threads on the mailing lists. I would like to ask you not to upload such images, unless you declare them fair use, in which case we basically say "We ignore your restrictions, anyone can use this image under the US copyright code for educational purposes". There's no need to immediately delete all such existing images, but after we've tagged them all we will probably get rid of most of them and declare a small minority fair use.

Yeah, it sucks - copyright is fundamentally stupid. But in the end I hope that we will have truly free images of most people, places and things. We already do have a few photos of celebrities taken by Wikipedians, for example, and keeping fair use at a minimum encourages that.

And yes, I'm lecturing again. But I don't charge admission ;-). —Eloquence 23:01, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

I have tagged tens of times more images than you, so ner-ner-ner-ner-ner. Morwen 23:02, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

---

Grey and cloudy. Will take some tomorrow as I am going to a computer shop at Edgware Rd. Secretlondon 14:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your prompt fixing of vandalism to the Bush page! They've really been at it today... Rei

Redirects

Thanks for cleaning up after my careless! I'd just said to myself, "Wait a minit, something doesn't feel right..." --Jerzy(t) 20:26, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)

Imperial College Electrical and Electronic Engineering Society

Is Imperial College Electrical and Electronic Engineering Society resolved? Was there proof of copyright permission provided? Thanks - Texture 23:00, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

An IP claims to be the user who posted it and also to be the original copyright holder. I think that's ok. Morwen 23:01, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

That's not the process documented for getting authorization. (I wrote "Passion of the Christ"... ;) - Texture 23:10, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Serbia / Kosovo / Vojvodina maps?

Hi Morwen,

Is there any chance of having some of your wonderful outline maps for Serbia proper and its northern and southern provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo respectively? I'd need three maps, one of each region. -- ChrisO 02:31, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Counties or Prefectures of Albania

Hi Morwen, regarding the naming issue on the Counties/Prefectures of Albania, is it confirmed by some solid source that counties is indeed preferred. There are many links with prefectures, and I'd like to be sure before I go around and change them. Thanks, Dori | Talk 16:06, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Sigh, OK, thanks, I'll go change them...wish they'd asked us first :) Dori | Talk 16:13, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Templates for country subdivisions

Thanks very much for your feedback last night on the question of how to deal with country subdivisions. I noticed that there was a bit of a gap between the country format at WikiProject Countries and the handful of national subdivisions that have so far been defined. I've had a go at drafting a new WikiProject for country subdivisions - it's currently at User talk:ChrisO/Country subdivisions. I'd be grateful for any thoughts you might have. -- ChrisO 14:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

History of British socialism

As someone who raised objections as to bias in an earlier version of the article, do you agree that the NPOV dispute tag can now be removed from the reworked page? Warofdreams 22:05, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right, the page needs more depth - like almost every page in Wikipedia - so feel free to contribute! Warofdreams 22:15, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

India

Hello Morwen. I "stole" all your very good looking India maps (i.e. image:IndiaAndhraPradesh.png) to the german Wikipedia. If there will be a change in the images, let me know. In the next days I will interwiki all the images and would be very glad if you could upload the India images in case of changes in the future. Usally the name is Indien_Andhra_Pradesh.png instead of IndiaAndhraPradesh.png in the german Wikipedia. In a few case the english and german orthographie differs (Rajasthan instead of Rajastan, Jammu und Kaschmir instead of Jammu and Kashmir. Would be very glay, de:Benutzer:Stern.

Thanks, for your fast answer, and thank you that you will send me a comment in case of an update. As I recognised yesterday, the swedish language version also uses some (or all?) of your maps. Bye, de:Benutzer:Stern.

A last disturb :-) In the german Wikipedia you can find the "prototype image" for brasilian states: de:Bild:Brasilien_Bundesstaaten.png. Perhaps you could create such an indian prototype map too and link it in your user page? Then the people could change borders for their own using your map in the future. Would be great! de:Benutzer:Stern

Blocked

Dear Morwen: Hi! You accidentally blocked me when blocking the Michael IPs can you please unblock me?

Also I have a few rights to photos of airline planes from their owners but since my computer has little memory I cant post them. I have Arp do some for me but I was wondering if you could help too, cause I dont want to throw all the work on Arp's lap!

Thanks and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Zip Values Martin

I replied on my pageDebug 20:09, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you again!

Thanks again Morwen for the counties of Albania. I've been kinda busy so I haven't gotten around to doing much. You're doing a hell of a job though!!! Dori | Talk 04:36, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Detailed maps of Russian districts

I happened to stumble upon Media:RussiaVolgaNumbered.png... shouldn't that be in a different geographic projection? The map of the whole of Russia doesn't make sense in an equidistant projection, but smaller ones should. --Shallot 21:18, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Germanic languages

You've unfortunately protected Germanic languages on a vandalized version. You may want to have a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress conserning the issue. The person who vandalized the page have attacked articles dealing with Yiddish language on numerous wikipedias, replacing "Germanic" with "Semitic" and removing Yiddish from articles dealing with Germanic languages. I don't know if he is some sort of anti-Yiddish Jewish nationalist, but his edits are obviously simple vandalism, and the page you protected should be reverted to an unvandalized version as soon as possible. Zw 00:05, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm okay - tired. Secretlondon 13:26, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Look - you may have better ones than me - and I may have missed some. Secretlondon 17:15, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Sorry to bore you but I've noticed we might have another traditional counties saga: Look at the edits of User User:MattRevell to the Wolverhampton and West Midlads articles which I have reverted G-Man 17:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Of course I'm uploading mine - I haven't got yours to upload. If yours are better replace mine - it's a wiki after all. Secretlondon 17:26, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No I haven't quit IRC - but you saw that IRC was causing mozilla to crash. I will go and find a better client. Secretlondon 17:36, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lewis

Hi - just wondering which part of Lewis was in Ross-shire. I thought that the whole region was in Inverness-shire, with Harris lying in the other county, and that's why I reverted the previous edit (with an explanation) -- on closer inspection, that should be the other way round, it all lay in Ross-shire with Harris in Inverness-shire. I've never seen Lewis used as a name for the entire island. Warofdreams 12:13, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Sulu, Suuruu, and Mister Kato

Hi Morwen, maybe you can weigh in on this matter: Talk:Hikaru_Sulu

- - Paul Richter 02:07, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Afghanistan has a new province

It was announced Friday that Afghanistan has established a 33rd province, Daikondi province.

I have changed all province articles that read thirty-two to read thirty-three. I have Edited Afghanistan and Template:Footer Provinces of Afghanistan. On Provinces of Afghanistan I added the new province, but I indented it, so that the numbers would still align with the map.

What I am incapable of doing is updating the maps. Are you up for the task of finding out what the borders of Daikondi province and adding the borders to each of the province maps and Image:AfghanistanNumbered.png? Kingturtle 05:42, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is maybe a quite reliable source for the borders on de the FAO website: http://www.fao.org/afghanistan/ . Daikondi was the most northern district of Oruzgan province. -- Ralf

Still a bit rough. What did you rebrand them as? wealthmaster? Secretlondon 15:40, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maps Provinces of Afghanistan

Hi Morwen,
I'm just transferring the articles about the provinces in Afghanistan to the German Wikipedia. I appreciate your maps very much. Please allow me one request and one remark:

• the German transcription is slightly different from the English. So the numerical order doesn't not correspond to the alphabetical order.
• I found another map in the internet, that shows some changes in the area of Parwan province (see [5]). I can't see, which source is the more appropriate one. -- Ralf

Blocked (again!)

Dear Mor; Hi1 You and a few other people these days have accidentally blocked me cause I use a IP thats shared by the infamous Michael. Because of this I can only do half of my wikipedia work basically. Its been like this for about 4 days. I know it was accidental but can you please unblock me? My IP is :205.188.116.211.

Thank you and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Reeejected!! Martin

Dear Mor; Hi, thanks for the help.

God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Morbid Martin

Discussion at Village Pump which may interest you

Hi Morwen,

Thought you might be interested to know that there's a discussion going on at the Wikipedia:Village_pump concerning "Blank Map tracings from copyrighted maps". -- ChrisO 10:37, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

You are blocking people that aren't Michael. Why don't you be a bit more careful? Lirath Q. Pynnor

I haven't blocked anyone for days. Morwen 21:58, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's fairly self-evident that there are other people besides Michael deserving of being blocked, but thought I'd reiterate anyway. - Hephaestos|§ 21:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A question

Morwen, User:80.255's recent edits to many county pages restore the "administrative county" language. Didn't we decide to do away with it? I've left him a note pointing to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), but is this discussed anywhere else? I'm confused and hoping you can let me know if my memory is bad, or if we did decide to refer to the current counties as "counties", not "administrative counties"? The change has been made to individual county pages, and to the MediaWiki table that lists England's counties. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 22:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please don't go away for long! You are well respected and trusted here, by me I know, and by many others also. Please let me know if I can help with anything. Jwrosenzweig 04:51, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bulgarian provinces

I've created articles for most of the provinces of Bulgaria. It still needs some work, but do you know where the "maps available" are? Thanks, Warofdreams 19:43, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds/Manor of Northstead

Is it really helpful or informative to have the boxes showing MPs who 'resigned' through appointment as Steward or Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds or Steward of the Manor of Northstead? This is an appointment which carries no duties and no salary. The only interesting thing about it would be to give the precise date of the appointment which is in the House of Commons Information Paper. I also have a list of the appointments from 1944 to 1958. Dbiv 16:48, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Morayshire/moray

Firstly, congratulations for giving Morayshire it's own article. It will prove far more flexible in the long run. I thought about doing so myself, but didn't want to start another "move war".

Secondly I've just noticed the following: Interestingly, the current Lieutenancy area of "moray" seems to accuractely depict the "rump" area of traditional morayshire, without the detached section of inverness-shire that was incorporated into the post 1889-administrative county, and also without the detached sections (which were administratively incorporated into administrative inverness-shire). Explain that! I can't, but it certainly suggests that real morayshire has not been entirely forgotten by the beaurocrats! In other words, the lieutenacy area created in 1996 seems to have been based on an area which has not been used for administration since 1889... 80.255 18:02, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't you mean 1975, not 1889 there? But yes, the lieutancies of Scotland are rather bizarre.See [6]. I wonder if you would consider its definition of 'county' to be ambiguous. Also note that it calls both the lieutancy area and the county 'Moray'. Morwen 18:11, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

I note that it seems to use the "counties" of "moray" and "banff" to mean the administrative counties that were abolished in 1975 ( I can't see the logic there, unless it's refering to the same "counties" that still exist for registration purposes). The fact that the previously incorporated portion of inverness-shire locally in morayshire was specifically incorporated into the "highland" region in 1975 is also odd; one wonders why administrative morayshire was dissected back into its consituent historic pieces before reincorporation into the oversized two-tier 'regions' that followed. Just goes to show the enduring significance of the traditional counties, I'm inclined to remark...

With regard to the discussion at Talk:Morayshire, I've uploaded [7], slightly more accurate in its portrayal of Morayshire (and a few other more sizable detached parts that sprung to mind), so if you want to use it to amend any of the relevant images, please do. It was altered using photoshop, which may have added unnecessary 'baggage', so you might prefer to alter your own master image seperately. I've flagged new 'pieces' with small, easily-erasable letters, which should be self-explanatory. 80.255 20:46, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou. I shall go and update the smaller maps in due course (probably tomorrow). Morwen 20:50, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hello; please note at Image_talk:ScotlandTradNumbered.png about mistake in ascribing a couple of exclaves. The rest are much improved, however; very good! 80.225.35.154 18:30, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Basildon

Regarding Basildon the district of Basildon includes the towns of Basildon, Billericay and Wickford. So shouldent the article be split? G-Man 20:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for fighting the good fight on the county issue, which I'm afraid I know too little about to be of any use. I know it must be tiring, but I am glad to see you remaining here and adding your considerable knowledge and good sense to the collective that is Wikipedia. If there is anything an uninformed American admin can do to give you any assistance on the county issue, please do let me know. Jwrosenzweig 18:54, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Do you know if there is an infobox standard for English counties? I've put up a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Subdivisions which is a superset of the various county displays at presnet, but wouldn't want to stage a coup by implementing this if there is another standard somewhere. --Keith Edkins 14:50, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Russian federal districts

I am not sure if you would be able to help me with this; if not, would you please forward this on to someone who can? Anyway, I was trying to figure out how Russian federal districts were named. In my opinion, whoever came up with the English versions of the names, should be shot in the head ... maybe twice. I'd love to rename them in a more uniform manner (e.g., Central Russia -> Central federal district, Russian Far East -> Far Eastern federal district (and leave information not relevant to the federal district but relevant to the Russian Far East on the Russian Far East page), Siberia -> Siberian federal district, and so on), but I couldn't help but noticed that the list of districts on the pages is actually a {{msg:Russian_federal_districts}} shortcut message, and not the actual table with the list. Do you know who should be contacted in regards to what that message generates? Any help would be appreciated! Thanks. --Ezhiki 17:10, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! I didn't know these messages were editable. Learned something today! --Ezhiki 17:21, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Gloucestershire

Sorry to bore you Morwen but I was wondering if you could help me out at Talk:Gloucestershire G-Man 12:17, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I like your cool-looking inset maps like Image:EnglandBlackpool.png. --Menchi 23:31, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I notice that some Malaysian states have maps, others don't. Just a reminder in case you forgot to complete this. --Wik 07:11, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

---

Morwen, can you please clarify copyright re Image:John Maynard Smith.jpg User:Maveric149 has a problem with it. See discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#May 2. Importantly, if I am in the wrong (which I do not believe I am), then there needs to be a notice to this effect, and possible removal of all images granted under this licence.

---

Ceremonial maps

Hi. I was wondering if you know how you are planning to map County Durham and North Yorkshire, where they split the borough of Stockton-on-Tees between them ceremonially? Morwen 16:34, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Maps are easy - they will both show Stockton up to, or down to, the Tees. Estimating the areas & populations may take a little longer - the latest report of the Boundary Committee for England on ward boundaries should help. --Keith Edkins 06:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Redirect

Sorry - redirected while you were deleting. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 22:46, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Sheffield

I'm not entirely sure I agree with your decision to split the Sheffield article, what criteria are you using to decide when to split city articles. To be honest I'm not to keen on city articles being split unless it's really neccesary G-Man 10:44, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I see your point, but saying Sheffield is a place in the City of Sheffield may sound rather odd to the average reader, as far as I can see Stocksbridge is the only place which is seperate from the main conurbation. In this particular case I would be tempted to merge the article but point out that the city boundaries encompass neighboring places like is done at York. G-Man 13:53, 6 May 2004 (UTC)