User talk:Morwen/archive2

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

just a reminder

this is just a friendly reminder to always use the comments field when editing. It makes life much easier for others when specifics can be seen while viewing page history. thanks! Kingturtle 17:49, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Bristol

Bristol was a "county-borough" before 1974. It was never called a "county" until the "County of Avon" was disbanded in 1996. - Efghij 08:17, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it was called before 1888, but it was definately not a county. There were a few cities that were administed seperatly from the geographic county they were part of; e.g. London, Coventry. In terms of traditional counties, the part of the city north of the Avon is part of Gloucestershire and the south of the Avon is part of Somerset. - Efghij 01:39, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

It was also called 'The City and County of Bristol' when I lived there in 1970, and this was the text on the boundary roadsigns as you entered Bristol. This Google search throws up quite a few references to the title. - Chris Jefferies 20th November 2003

Automatic mathematics

Despite your claim on VfD, there is such a thing. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:40, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Milankovitch

Quick work: I'd only just written the page and realised it ought to be renamed. Thanks! Now, can I get to James Croll before you...? (William M. Connolley 21:25, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC))

Admin

You're now an administrator. -- Tim Starling 02:40, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Congrats. Secretlondon 09:39, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Someones doing an article on municipal govt - i think thats only in the US but you are the expert on counties etc ;) Secretlondon 09:39, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Municipal government

Local government is becoming a total mess, and I don't think we should move anything else into it - it wants things moving out of it. I've had a go at writing intros to both to make sense of the difference

Advice please on procedure -- should we be having these discussions on user talk pages, or on the article talk page?

seglea 09:53, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Underground

Morwen, not criticizing, just curious, why a separate page for each station on the London Underground? orthogonal 19:46, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Rugby

My, you were quick updating the Rugby Union World Cup article! I took a little longer to write a review of the match in 2003 Rugby Union World Cup! :) Arwel 11:29, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sanacja

Where did you find the stuff on Modern Sanacja's policy? Andy Mabbett 20:33, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

National Grid

Your work on National grid has been partially duplicated in the Eastings and Northings section of the main Ordnance Survey article. These should be merged. Worryingly, both contain a shaped list of two-letter grids, but they don't agree on what is land or water! Some fixing is need IMHO. 62.252.64.8 22:36, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you. Does the fact that the OS claims 'ownership' of the use of grid co-ordinates using two-letter codes affect our ability to display the graphic on National grid? Details of this particular horror at http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/goodguides/gis/sect45.html (see section 4.5.5). Penfold 10:30, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

Eric Harris's and Dylan Klebold's plans

No, the plane hijack gig was no joke. According to the Crime Library website, the boys wrote the plan to hijack an airliner in their journal. WhisperToMe 07:47, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Villages

Hi. What's your criteria for putting villages in London boroughs? I would think that literally hundreds of villages have been swallowed up by London. Mintguy 09:29, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Whether they are important, large, or famous, basically. Morwen 20:25, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I see. It's just that Battersea was a village and the old heart of it is now frequently called Battersea village. It was formerly a borough in its own right too so is listed on Wandsworth in that capacity, and I wasn't sure whether it would be appropriate to list it as a village as well. Mintguy

The issue is avoiding waste of space. The table has to be kept narrow, although it can be lengthened, and two instances of the word 'Battersea' is questionable. When it was a link to 'Battersea' I would have dismissed such a suggestion immediately, but now it links to 'Metropolitan Borough of Battersea' it is perhaps more justified. Perhaps the 'formerly' information doesn't belong in the table at all, but in the article, which would solve the problem. Morwen 20:36, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A fine solution. Mintguy

Duplicated article

Your new article Mendelism already exists under the name Mendelian inheritance. I suppose you better merge them. -wshun 22:21, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, blame the wrong one. :P Do you agree that I should simply make Mendelism a redirect? wshun 22:32, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Eton College

Why did you "rephrase" Eton College such that it now ommits factual and relevant information? Isn't factual and relevant information what wikipedia is about? 80.255 10:09, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Telephone

Why did you remove that phrase about the Chinese inventor of the early telephone? Its taken from the Swedish telephone museum. // Rogper 11:36, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Okay, anyway I rephrased the paragraph (and I saw you have look at it too). // ?Rogper 20:30, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Counties

"Warwickshire (rump)" ? Whoever talks about such an entity? What a mess! Andy Mabbett 19:24, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Gloucestershire (rump)" ? Whoever talks about such an entity? What a mess! Andy Mabbett 19:34, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Who siad anything about South Glous? (And don't you think it makes more sense to reply here, than on my talk page? Andy Mabbett 19:39, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  - As I said, free free to move the pages. I am not going to object to any changes you make. Morwen 19:42, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    - If they must be spilt (and I would have preferred not), the best name would be "Gloucestershire (19nn)", using the year of creation - but I'm not sure when that would be. Also, we currently have 8th century history under a page about current- day Warwickshire, but not on the page about the historic county (and so on). All done, apparently to pander to an individual, idiosyncratic user's PoV :-( Andy Mabbett 19:53, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      - I am as unhappy about it as you are, but edit wars don't seem to be solving it. It was quite ridiculous that half the articles about counties whose boundaries had changed, were about the administrative ones, and half were about the traditional ones - and that whether the map (if any) showed the new or old boundaries was random and had not much bearing on that. For example, Somerset had the old map but didn't mention Bath. Clearly silly, and this moves away from that. Morwen 19:59, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sussex

From my talk page: Hmm, interesting. I should think if that is true, then what that is indicated is that the lord-lieutenancy wasn't broken up until 1974. I have ordered a copy of the local government act in order to get it direct rather than filtered through prejudices, and this should be arriving soon. So we'll see. Morwen 12:14, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Do you now have this document? Mintguy 21:09, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No - I think it got lost in the postal strike. :( Morwen 21:09, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Gloucestershire

Just out of interest why did you turn Gloucestershire into an article about the "traditional county" instead of the modern one, surely you've got it the wrong way round. G-Man 23:51, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Done.... Although I dont see why two separate articles should exist. Frankly I'm utterly fed up with 80.255 and his/her traditional counties nonsense. G-Man 00:00, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It keeps the nonsense segregated. Are you going to make a Gloucestershire (traditional) to keep them from bitching too much? Morwen 00:04, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Done....But I put the link right at the bottom of the page in small text 'tee hee hee' G-Man 00:57, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Lots of county fun for you I see ;) Did you get back okay? Secretlondon 16:44, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)

I dont see what authority 80.255 thinks he has to move the county pages to XXXXXX (administrative), a title which is used or recognised by no one and create hundreds of broken links in the process. I'm probably going to get into one awesome edit war over this but there you go. What do you think G-Man 19:34, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Go for it. I was responsible for the (rump) ones, but they can at least be partially justified by the ceremonial counties. The "south gloucestershire (uaa)" crap is just politically-motivated bullshit. Morwen 19:36, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fine, but if I get into an edit war I would appreciate some help. Otherwise 80.255 will try to portray me as the bad guy who "keeps starting edit-wars" as he has tried to do at Talk: Warwickshire G-Man 19:53, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What the hell... Morwen 20:04, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is that a yes?. Actually I'm not sure what to do with Gloucestershire it's a complete mess, do you have any ideas. G-Man 20:09, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, a yes. No idea. Morwen 20:11, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I shall go away and have a think about it. I will probably return later, having hopefully had a flash of inspiration. G-Man 21:08, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

North Korea

I'm putting this here because I know it will appeal to you. List of cities in North Korea. Secretlondon 13:03, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

Newport Pagnell

"At one time Newport Pagnell was one of the largest towns in the county of Buckinghamshire (the assizes of the county were occasionally held here), though today it has been completely dwarfed by the growth of Milton Keynes. The two have joined up and there is no easy distinction to see where Newport Pagnell ends, and Milton Keynes begins."

There are very many (particularly those from Newport Pagnell itself) who believe that this linkup is indeed unfortunate. After all, have you ever been to Milton Keynes? Graham :) 23:18, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Cake

Re Cake - the drug Why change my "fictional" to "made up"? Maybe should be "made-up", a compound adjective. Maybe "fictitious" is what I meant. Andy G 20:41, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Because it's made up in labs! Or did you not see the episode? ;) Morwen 20:42, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ha ha! Too subtle for me. Andy G 21:29, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Tube stations (or not)

Re: the tube stations. The point is, they have never been referred to as tube stations anywhere except on here. It is fairly evident that the creator of those pages didn't know what they were writing about, as they quoted Quainton as being in London. In fact it is about 40 miles outside London, even today. Look it up on a map. Graham 22:55, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My second point being (now you have elected to revert the page) is that Stoke mandeville, Wendover and Great Missenden are not referred to as tube stations today, neither have they ever been, nor are they in London.

This (use of 'tube station' all over the place) has been annoying me too over the last few days. The 'tube' is - accurately - only the deep tube lines (Victoria, Picadilly, Bakerloo, Northern, Central, Fleet/Jubilee). To call the C&C lines (District, Metropolitan, H&City, ELL) 'tube' is an error as they are merely 'undergound' lines. Trouble is the phrase "I'm taking the tube" will be used for all of it as an 'inclusive' term when really it isn't. You just have to look at the history of the naming ('Tube' came in quite late, and was an alliteration on the Central London Railway's use of the marketing phrase The Twopenny Tube). The met line at the outer reaches never actually appeared on any underground maps although trains ran to Verney Junction (which is *literally* in the middle of nowhere, though pretty!) until 1936. Same as the trains that ran out to Southend until 1939 don't mean that it was a 'tube' line / 'tube stations' all the way out there. Now though it would be too coplex to correct all the 'tube' usage to valid usage, so we'll just have to live with it. --VampWillow 20:28, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

In defence of 'tube', TfL do frequently refer to the entire system as the 'tube'. On this page [1] the term 'London Underground' is used once, as opposed to countless instances of 'tube'. It is an informal usage to be sure, but words do stretch their meanings, and this seems to be one of them. I note that 'London Underground' is also technically inaccurate for the supersurface lines outside of London ;) Morwen 20:36, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

supersurface ?? I'll agree with you that 'tube' is used to refer to the system (as a shorthand) but that doesn't make all the stations tube stations, although the small-but-significant difference can be hard to explain to non-Londoners! For instance, Wembley Park is wiki'd as Wembley Park tube station even though it serves overground trains out of Marylebone (which, as it happens, pass through Verney Junction). My POV is that only stations on the deep tube should really have tube station as their link, others having underground station as the link essence. --VampWillow 20:53, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

Certainly if mainline trains call at a station it should be at "X station". I'm not especially inclined to argue if you are going to move things to 'underground'. There's a wikiproject about this sort of thing somewhere, I will see if I can find it. Morwen 21:08, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

french alphabet

bonjour, Morwen.
on french alphabet you say: Some words differ by only 'oe' vs 'œ' ligature, but since in modern computer-based typesetting the ligature has fallen out of use, this no longer presents a comprehension problem. that's false and true ;D

the ligature has not fallen out of use; see w:fr:?uf and we changed all the "oe" to "éoelig;"!
there is no comprehension problem at all.

au revoir Alvaro from Caen 02:23, 2003 Dec 5 (UTC)

It had partially fallen out of use, since it wasn't in ISO-8859-1. Morwen 18:37, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

sutherland

You don't possibly mean the Sutherland in Sydney, do you? (re Reqeusts in RC). Sutherland is rather boring :) Dysprosia 13:37, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think I rather meant the Sutherland in Scotland which 90% of the links to it are about. ;) Morwen 13:41, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just thought I'd check :) Dysprosia 13:44, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Re:De jure vs. de facto

No, de jure means according to the law and de facto means in actuality...

North Korea has no official head of state, so no one in the listing can possibily be "de jure". Kim Yong-nam officially accredits the ambassadors, thus fulfilling the duties of head of state, but he is not the head of state - he is just the head of the parliament. (The position of "President" was abolished so that Kim il-sung would be "eternal president". However, a dead guy cant be head of state.) I originally had Kim Jong-il as "head of government", but Wik decided otherwise (see the talk page). --Jiang|(Talk) 21:54, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

National parks

My mistake, I wasn't thinking. Thank you for catching me. --Minesweeper 14:20, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

staatsoper

Hi, I noticed that several days ago you created two redirects, Berlin Staatsoper and Staatsoper, to Berlin State Opera. In case you didn't know, Berlin is not the only city in Germany with a staatsoper; Hamburg (Hamburg State Opera) has one and other cities as well, hence Staatsoper is probably not a good redirect for Berlin State Opera. I fixed the link on Unter den Linden so it points directly to Berlin State Opera. Do you mind if I now delete Staatsoper? -- Viajero 19:58, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Go ahead. Morwen 20:00, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

English Cities

+------------------------------+
| e                            |
+------------------------------+
| Ashburton,_Devon             |
| Buxton,_Derbyshire           |
| Cavendish,_Suffolk           |
| Chesterfield,_Derbyshire     |
| Coton                        |
| Derby,_Derbyshire            |
| Derby_City                   |
| Durham,_County_Durham        |

| Ford_Park_Cemetery,_Plymouth |
| Frome,_Somerset              |
| Holt                         |
| Holt,_Norfolk                |
| Ingham                       |
| Ipswich,_Suffolk             |
| Louth                        |
| Millbridge,_Plymouth         |
| Newport,_Shropshire          |
| Nursling,_Hampshire          |
| Nursling,_Hampshire          |
| Princetown                   |
| Sedgemoor,_Somerset          |
| Stonehouse,_Plymouth         |
| Stonehouse_Creek,_Plymouth   |
| Stonehouse_creek,_Plymouth   |
| Tintagel,_Cornwall           |
+------------------------------+

More English cities :-)

+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
| e                      | original                                  |
+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Ashburton          | Ashburton,_Devon,_England             |
| Coton              | Coton,_England                        |
| Derby_City         | Derby_City,_England                   |
| Ford_Park_Cemetery | Ford_Park_Cemetery,_Plymouth,_England |
| Holt               | Holt,_England                         |
| Holt               | Holt,_Norfolk,_England                |
| Ingham             | Ingham,_England                       |
| Louth              | Louth,_England                        |
| MillBank           | MillBank,_London,_England             |
| Millbridge         | Millbridge,_Plymouth,_England         |
| Nag's_Head         | Nag's_Head,_London,_England           |
| Princetown         | Princetown,_England                   |
| Stonehouse         | Stonehouse,_Plymouth,_England         |
| Stonehouse_Creek   | Stonehouse_Creek,_Plymouth,_England   |
| Stonehouse_creek   | Stonehouse_creek,_Plymouth,_England   |
+--------------------+---------------------------------------+

Regards, JeLuF

And how do you know I'm not in bed, surely you mustn't have gone to bed either ;) Secretlondon 23:17, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

hugs*

Cromartyshire

I've uploaded a basic outline map of this on the Cromartyshire article. I'll try and add locations of other towns a little later. Is this what you had in mind for all the scottish counties? 80.255 17:57, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I was thinking that it would show all of the land and borders within a rectangle - it looks rather like the highlands are an island atm! Morwen 18:25, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

Point taken! Article now shows better map. 80.255

Why the hell did you upload a bloody picture of a tube station as Mansionhouse.jpg for? Did you check first to see if there was an image with that name? Now there is a far too large picture of a tube station screwing up a series of pages that have nothing to do with a tube station and which used a previous picture called that name long before that bloody tube picture. Next time for Christ's sake be more careful. FearÉIREANN 00:25, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My apologies, and here, have something for your blood presure. Morwen 18:16, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for my outburst. I was rather angry when a set of pages were all messed up, with the completely wrong image, far far too big, dominating the pages. Other users tried to revert to earlier versions of the articles but every version threw up the same replacement image. The trouble is that when a new image is given an old image name, it replaces the old image and the old image is completely lost and cannot be reverted to. I tried deleting your image to see if the previous image would come back but it was to no avail. It is simply lost. As to your image, it was far far beyond the maximum limits in terms of size allowable. On some browsers it threw page structure all over the page. On some browsers it reduced the text to one letter per line. I've learned this myself from bitter experience in downloading images. Anything over 300 is a problem; anything over 350 is a disaster that makes the page in some browsers unreadable at best, at worst if not using broadband the page can take minutes to download, often forcing the user to exit the browser completely or in extreme cases reboot the computer. I deleted the image because its scale was such that it was unusable. If you want to download it again please make it substantially smaller and as it is a tube station, use that reference in the name, eg., mansionhtube. I am now going to have to retake the image that was originally at that name as I no longer have the original image, nor have I the image originally used on that page before my image. I was angry at the need to retake the image, the massive size of your image, and the fact that a number of users had had to spend time trying with no sucess to wade through edit histories trying to find a page with the original image, not your irrelevant replacement. And no matter how far back they went, and how many reversions they tried, every page had the same massive and irrelevant image of a tube station.

But again, apologies for my reaction. I hope you understand the reasons why I saw red. I know what you did was 100% accidential, not deliberate. It just undid a lot of careful work and caused problems for a lot of people trying to find the original images for those pages. Be very careful when downloading images to give specific names that can only have one meaning, rather than generic names that may well have been used by others. Most people would invariably presume mansionhouse to refer to a mansion house, not a train station near a mansion house. :-) FearÉIREANN 23:31, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps it has changed recently, but I certainly remember that you can obtain older versions of images. Morwen 23:33, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Just checked, and if you go to

you will see this demonstrated. I understand entirely why I should not do this, and did before; I was just being stupidly careless. Really the software should make uploads and replacements a different thing. Morwen 23:35, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Canadian Election 1972, I think the fact that the eleciton-night and official results were different (otherwise unprecendented in canadian history) deserves a mention Pellaken 00:21, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Broughton, Newport Pagnell, Milton keynes

Apologies for the name of the above article, here is how it happened: it started out as Broughton, Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire in order to separate it from Broughton, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. But then I remembered that Newport Pagnell is no longer in Buckinghamshire, but in Milton keynes, so changed the last part of it, and not the NP bit. Many apologies for that. Graham :) -- Francs2000 00:31, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No worries. I tend to go by the rule that if X is a page about something, then its ok to use X, so you could have just called those Broughton, Newport Pagnell, and Broughton, Aylesbury. But no harm done. Morwen 00:33, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Domestic and Foreign Policies of Jean Chrètien

Can I arbitrarily protect that page and others like it? ugen64 14:04, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

This is a bit hot for someone new - I'm protecting pages that he's reverted his changes to, and blanking and protecting ones that have been deleted and recreated. Morwen 14:06, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I'm a noob. He's on auto-revert... :-) ugen64 14:07, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC) what I meant, was that if he created, say, "Domestic and Foreign Policy of JEan Chretien" just to get past the protection, could I protect it.

Heydar Aliyev

Talk about great minds thinking alike - you were stubbing the article on Heydar Aliyev at exactly the same time that I was writing it! Hope it's OK. I'm sure others can expand it further if they want to. -- ChrisO 14:19, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well after me and Secretlondon stubbed everyone on List of national leaders, it would be silly to let these things get out of date. :) Morwen 14:27, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Vinca alphabet

BTW, I noticed that you were having a bit of a spat with Nikola over the Vinca alphabet. Short answer is, you're both right and you're both wrong (useful, eh?). It does exist and it's not a national myth; however, Nikola's preferred explanation as given in the article is at the very least controversial and very likely wrong. See my comments in the related talk page. -- ChrisO 15:03, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I was quite willing to believe that the markings do exist, but the idea of calling it an 'alphabet' is a fringe theory, and I suspect the reason why Nikola was claiming it to be unquestionably true for nationalistic reasons. Lots of nations make dubious or often flat out wrong claims about the history of their language, for nationalistic reasons. So I think we are in violent agreement. Morwen 15:05, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

I think, more fundamentally, he might only know it as the "Vinca alphabet" and not by its better known name of the "Old European Script" - if he'd Googled on that, he would have found considerably more information on it. -- ChrisO 15:12, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That is also possible. Morwen 15:14, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

I've rewritten Vinca alphabet - see what you think. There are a couple of actions which will need to be done (i.e. renaming/moving the page) if everyone's happy with it. -- ChrisO 01:32, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Looks excellent. Thanks Morwen 10:56, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

Warwickshire

Morwen, do you agree with me that the Warwickshire articles should be re-integrated. Personally I think it's silly that it should be split. For instance Rugby is in both the present and historic county so which article should it be linked to. The same applies to other counties G-Man 16:17, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree, but this would be conditioned on using the past tense to describe historic warwickshire. If we have to use the present tense, then keep them separeated. Morwen 16:19, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

It only seems to be 80.255 who insists upon using the present tense to describe historic counties, perhaps I could come up with slightly ambiguous wording like, "The traditional boundaries of warwickshire include". Personally I would like to copy the Staffordshire article. I could also draw up a map of warwickshire which showed both the present and traditional boundaries G-Man 16:24, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Staffordshire seems entirely acceptable to me. By the way, it was't just 80.255 - we had Owain for a while, who posted while 80.255 was mysteriously absent for a month or so. Morwen 16:27, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

I think this issue of whether historic counties exist or not should be settled once and for all. There seems to be two different interpretations of the law on this matter. Perhaps we should write to someone or other who is likely to give a definitive answer on the subject (I'm not sure who perhaps someone in the government or something).

BTW what do you think of my "counties" wording on the Coventry article, I'm sure 80.255 wont like it but there you go G-Man 17:05, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure the government will give a straight answer, see their statement. Also I don't trust 80.255's characterisation of the 1888 act, as specifically leaving traditional counties untouched, so we shouldn't accept that unless we get a full-text of the Act from a trustable source such as the government printers, and it is clearly true. The 'Until' in Coventry implies that West Midlands no longer exists, (which it of course does), but other than that it seems fine. Morwen 17:08, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

I've tweaked that. Perhaps we should try to get our hands on a copy of the act, I'm not sure where from but I'm sure it could be done, and we could attempt to settle this once and for all.

Changing the subject, as I'm rather tired of twittering about counties. What do you think about my Rugby, England article, do you think its ok/ needs improving etc G-Man 17:17, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, it looks fine. If i were editing it, I'd trim down the section at the top, move/integrate some of the history into the history section, and make the top section be about Rugby today and maybe the sport and Whittle. Um, that's it really. ;) Morwen 17:19, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)