User talk:MRSC/Archive 9
|This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.|
- 1 Welcome back!
- 2 UK telephone code misconceptions
- 3 East End of London
- 4 An update(?)
- 5 Britannica Refs
- 6 London People Categories
- 7 Yorkshire
- 8 Co Durham
- 9 The compromise
- 10 Yorkshires 1889 - 1974
- 11 Paper
- 12 SELNEC PTA
- 13 Hi
- 14 SELNEC again
- 15 Template:England people message
- 16 Wales
- 17 Lieutenancy areas
- 18 London archiving
- 19 Cambridgeshire template
- 20 SSSI work
- 21 RfA thanks
- 22 London Meetup - January 12, 2008
- 23 counties - please stop
- 24 Wold Newton, Lincolnshire
- Same from me. Good to see you. Regan123 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for this belated welcome, but its finally sunk in to me that you are back. Good news. I hope your break from here has been good and productive in other ways for you. (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks all for such a warm welcome back. I did enjoy the break and can see things with new eyes, which is always a benefit. I also got some real-world reading done for a change. I am glad to see that so much has been going on and look forward to collaborating to get some more articles to GA and FA status. MRSC • Talk 13:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, MRSC! Thank you very much for your interest in this article. Another editor and myself felt that your changes to the lead section were well-intentioned, but left it lacking somewhat: I agree that it needs work, but some of the stuff you chopped away was necessary to summarise the article. Please see the talk page if you're still interested. Thanks.. EuroSong talk 00:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you may wish to take a look at East End of London, since you were involved in its conception, and make any changes/comments you feel appropriate. It is currently up for FA, so you may also wish to comment on its suitability, or any changes you feel are necessary to improve the article. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- It did make it to FA - and thank you on the other matter. I've got one in for GA at the moment, and with a bit more work I'll try on either Rainham, or Greenwich to get some idea of where the bar is for locales in London. If the GA reviewer was particularly tough on Rainham, then it should get to GA quite quickly. Cheers, again. Kbthompson (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello once again MRSC! It is fantastic to see your return - and it's clear you're getting right in there without haste, sorting County Durham and many other problems.
Just a quick update on a few things you may not be aware of since your departure/semi-retirement (?). Much work has been successfully developed, particularly the writing of a WP:UKCITIES guideline (which has fostered many, many GAs and FAs), a massive expansion of county maps for the UK place infobox, the overhall of WikiProject UK geography (and the creation of many daughter projects, like WP:GM)... and... I have been developing a new WP:UKCOUNTIES guideline during the last fortnight, which you may or may not care to get involved with or have a cursory glance at my intentions.
It's clear you're still interested in postal demarcation and London, but you were quite obviously one of our strongest and well respected contributors and hope you would think about rejoining WP:UKGEO at some point down the line too....
I hope your long break from Wikipedia was brought about by something positive, and all is well with you. I hope that I will not be pestering/looking to you so much since the last period of contribution - I feel much more learned and experienced, and indeed have tried to take on some of your roles during your absence (...tried!). Kindest regards, -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi MRSC. Thanks for your work on County Durham. The sections you put unreferenced tags on comes from Britannica - is there a way we can show this, or do you think it is best that we leave the tags in the hope that others can provide other sources (as per Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica)? Logoistic 15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
London People Categories
Do you know how I get sub categories to organise alphabetically by letter of choice rather than 1st letter - as in People from Holloway, organising under H not P? Thanks hjuk (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind I've managed to re-create it (which was rather a lot of work to do). Please do not destroy the infobox which made the article look very tidy so wrecklessly, that act put backwards the article quality. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Your edit here to County Durham rejects the wording that I used. You wrote that "sorry no, the literature just isn't saying this". I am really sick of this debate now, but it is a fact that (and I feel like a record player going on and on yet not being heard) the LGA 1972 says nothing about the non-metropolitan county being the "reconsituted" form of County Durham. My edit made it clear that many sources regard the non-metropolitan county as the reconsistuted form of County Durham, but the primary source (the LGA 1972) simply redistributed the administrative county of Durham amongst three new entities. Let's present the facts as they are, not what some secondary sources choose to believe. Logoistic (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- (reply from my talk page) You are suggesting that the "county" Durham in the 1888 LGA and the "county" Durham in the 1974 LGA are referring to the same entity. This is of course false: the "county" in each circumstance was properly defined, and we see two counties: the administrative county of Durham and the non-metropolitan county of Durham. What do you object to here? It is not a fact that one is the reconsituted form of the other, but it is a significant opinion that it is. Therefore it should be sourced and not presented as fact, with the details of the LGA 1972 specified (i.e. that the adminsitrative county of Durham was distributed among three new entities). What is wrong with this? Logoistic (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- It has: I made a case for it here, but has only been looked at by 1 person. I'd appreciate you commenting on it. The fundamental point is that we are presenting the 1974 changes as if one continuous entity runs through the changes, when in actuality the legislation makes no such point. Areas were not "lost" and "gained" or "reconsituted" but "abolished" and "created": so why present this fallacy? What is wrong with the truth? Logoistic (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Look, you clearly think that certain non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties are the "reconsituted" form of administrative counties, whereas other non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties were "lost" from it. And I accept that this is a significant view and deserves to be represented. However, the LGA 1972 only redistributed adminsitrative county area among newly created entities after it was abolished. Both can be put in the article: the wording I had represents this best of all (see below). I am really struggling to see why you are trying so hard to censor this.
Some take the view that the non-metropolitan county of Durham is the reconstitution of "County Durham" from the administrative county of Durham (e.g. that County Durham's boundaries have "changed" and area "lost" and "gained"), although the Local Government Act 1972 states only that the administrative county is "abolished" and its area distributed among three new non-metropolitan and metropolitan counties. The area of the Lord Lieutenant of Durham was also adjusted by the Act to coincide with the non-metropolitan county (which occupied 745,995 acres in 1981). Logoistic (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- But why are you presenting the position that certain non-metropolitan counties are the single continuation of former administrative counties as fact when they are merely an interpretation of the original source document (the LGA 1972)? Presenting facts of the 1974 changes as anything other than what they actually were: areas being abolished and created is misleading people. Wikipedia policies are not set in stone, so please address my point rather than directing me to a polic page that does not: I am telling you why it is wrong. Logoistic (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yorkshires 1889 - 1974
Right, here are the boundary changes per Youngs. Not sure how to format these....
- 1890: Huddersfield CB absorbed Longwood USD
- 1895: Boundary changes with Nottinghamshire, East Riding and North Riding:
- Notts part of Auckley CP transferred to YWR
- YNR part of Lower Dunsforth CP transferred to YWR
- YNR part of Upper Dunsforth with Branton Green CP transferred to YWR
- YWR part of Humberton CP transferred to YNR
- YWR part of Milby CP transferred to YNR
- Part of Knedlington CP YER to Newland CP YWR
- 1899: Bradford CB extension: absorbed five urban districts: Eccleshill, Idle, North Bierley, Thornton and Tong
- 1900: Halifax CB extension: absorbed Northowram, Warley UDs
- 1901: Sheffield CB extension: part of Bradford CP (Wortley RD) became Bradford Urban CP
- 1902: Rotherham constituted CB
- 1912: Leeds CB extension: Leeds RD (Roundhay, Seacroft CPs) and Shadwell CP (Wethb RD) absorbed
- 1912: Sheffield CB extension: Tinsley CP (Rotherham RD)
- 1913: Barnsley and Dewsbury CBs constituted
- 1915: Wakefield constituted CB
- 1921: Barnsley CB extension: Ardsley and Monkbretton UDs absorbed
- 1921: Sheffield CB extension: absorbed Handsworth UD
- 1921: Wakefield CB extension: absorbed Lupset CP (Wakefield RD)
- 1927: Doncaster constituted CB
- 1928: Leeds CB extension: Absorbed Abel cum Eccup CP, Alwoodley CP (Wharfedale RD), Templenewsham CP (Hunslet RD)
- 1930: Bradford CB extension: absorbed Clayton UD
- 1934: Sheffield CB extension: absorbed most of Norton RD (Derbyshire)
- 1936: Rotherham CB extension: absorbed (most of) Greasborough UD
- 1937: York CB extension: absorbed (most of) Acomb CP (Gt Ouseburn RD), (part of) Dringhouses Without CP, Middlethorpe Without CP (Bishopthorpe RD),
- 1937: Bradford CB extension: absorbed (part of) Esholt CP (Wharfedale RD), Yeadon UD
- 1937: Huddersfeld CB extension: absorbed Fixby CP (Halifax RD), Golcar UD, Linthwaite UD, Stainland UD
- 1937: Leeds CB extension: absorbed Wigton CP (Wethb RD)
- 1938: Huddersfield CB extension: absorbed parts of South Crosland, Kirkheaton and Lepton UDs
- 1938: Sheffield CB extension: absorbed (part of) Orgreave CP (Rotherham RD)
- 1938: Barnsley CB extension: absorbed (part of) Worsborough UD
- 1951: Doncaster CB extension (part of) Cantley CP
- 1951: Wakefield CB extension: absorbs (part of) Crigglestone CP
- 1957: York CB extension: absorbed part of Askham Bryan CP
- 1957: Leeds CB extension: absorbed (part of) Austhorpe, Barwick in Elmet CPs
- 1967: Sheffield CB extension: areas exchanged with Aston cum Aughton CP, Ecclesfield CPs, parts of Beighton CP split between Sheffield CB, YWR
- 1895: Exchanged areas with YWR (qv)
- 1913: Middlesbrough CB extension: absorbed part of Linthorpe CP (Middlesbrough RD), part of Ormesby UD
- 1932: Middlesbrough CB extension: absorbed part of West Acklam CP
- 1968: Creation of Teesside CB from Middlesbrough CB part of Eston UD, part of Redcar MB, Thornaby-on-Tees MB, Marton CP, Newby CP, (most of) Stainton CP, Hemlington CP in YNR; also gained former Stockton-on-Tees MB and parts of other CPs from Co Durham
- 1895: Part of Knedlington CP to Newland CP YWR
- 1930: Kingston upon hull CB extension: absorbed part of Anlaby CP, part of Bilton CP, part of Cottingham CP, part of Hessle CP, part of Sutton on Hull CP
- 1935: Kingston upon hull CB extension: absorbed part of Anlaby CP, part of Bilton CP, part of Cottingham CP, part of Kirk ella CP, part of Sutton on Hull CP, part of willerby CP
- 1955: Kingston upon hull CB extension: absorbed part of Bilton CP
- 1968: York CB extension: absorbed part of Heslington CP
- 1968: Kingston upon Hull CB extension: absorbed parts of Bilton, Wawne CPs
- Many thanks. Copied and replied at Talk:History of local government in Yorkshire. MRSC • Talk 18:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Per our discussion, can I recommend Frangopulo, N.J (1977). Tradition in Action: The Historical Evolution of the Greater Manchester County. EP Publishing, Wakefield. ISBN 0-7158-1203-0-3 Check
|isbn= value: length (help). for details on the evolution of transport infrastructure and administration for transport in and around Manchester? It's a 306 page hardback book and a fantastic source full of text, some photographs, diagrams, list of primary sources, on the county, SELNEC, and all aspects former and contemporary local governance in the area too. It's not too expensive either (even for me!). It's not an obvious choice and you may overlook it, but I do recommend it highly for your purposes. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is a test of how good my recommendation is now!... Give me a few minutes and I'll try and find out. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- From page 187:
By the Transport Act of 1968 the Minister of Transport was able to set up in the following year the SELNEC Passenger Transport Authority. Its purpose was to secure, through its Executrive, the provision of a completely integrated and efficient system of passenger transport to meet the needs of its area. It was this comparatively new organisation for road and rail transport which the Greater Manchester Council took over on 1 April 1974, as the largest single unit in the United Kingdom after London Transport.... [it continues on about how grand and complex the system is]...
- I've just learned that in 1947, Lancashire County Council proposed a three "ridings" system to meet the changing needs of the county (page 228). It also goes on (page 233) that the Commission confessed that 'the choice even of a label of convenience for this metropolitan area is difficult' when considering SELNEC Vs. Greater Manchester as a name for the county.... Interesting stuff!
- According to page 242, Greater Manchester County Council (though it seems to invariably call itself Greater Manchester Council - without "county") merely took control of SELNEC PTE. There is no mention of exchanges of territory.
The SELNEC Passenger Transport Authority, originally established in 1969, was taken over by the Council on 1 April 1974 in order to co-ordinate bus and rail services within the new county. The Council has overall responsibility for the strategic planning and all policy decisions in transportation planning convering public transport and highways
- It seems to me however strange that the boundaries of control would be coincidentally matching? An up and coming source is http://www.selnec.org.uk/ with which I can point to which may elaborate.
- But... did you know, Conservatives secured a one third reduction of the original size of Greater Manchester? Glossop, Macclesfield, and other places were retained by their previous counties to ensure their county councils had enough revenue to be competative? Also, German traders coined the name Manchesterthum meaning Greater Manchester. I really ought to read this fully eh? -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- According to www.selnec.org.uk...
...because of the integrated appropriation of transport systems brought about by the Transport Act of 1968 required PTE's to be set up in 1969, in advance of the 1974 local Government re-organisation. The PTE's, therefore, were named to tie in with local government re-organisation which was to follow five years later. What people fail to remember is that the name SELNEC was not unique to the bus company, but was to be the name of the Metropolitan Borough [ <--- This must mean "County" not "Borough"] area from 1st April 1974 onwards and the only reason the PTE, formed in 1969 was called SELNEC PTE, was that this was to be the SELNEC area, South East Lancashire/North East Cheshire. Consequently, the name SELNEC, although now unique to the bus company, was intended to be the name used for the entire area, and had it not been changed to Greater Manchester on 1st April 1974, being Greater Manchester Borough Council and Greater Manchester PTE, then we would have seen SELNEC Metropolitan Borough Council [ <--- Again, this must mean "County" not "Borough"], SELNEC Fire Engines, SELNEC Ambulances, SELNEC Police Force, etc.
- I'm not really clued up about transport if I'm honest, so correct me if I'm wrong... but wouldn't GMPTE still run services to Glossop and other places outside of Greater Manchester? Do PTE's have tightly defined zones with which they operate in? Surely not?.... On the otherhand though, I'm not sure how (or if) they branded their bus flags in former SELNEC-shire. The book suggests that the PTEs were well aware of the impending local government reform anyway. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I was looking in the Times archive. On October 16 1968, debate on the Transport Bill was proceeding in the Commons. The Lords had added an amendment to delay formation of passenger transport authorities until after local government reform. Mr Swingler, The Minister for State for Transport rejected the amemdment as "the situation in the great urban areas was so urgent that the problem could not be left, possibly for several years, before being tackled by some form of integrated passenger transport authority."
The government intended to begin establishing PTAs in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, the West Midlands and Tyneside as soon as the bill became law.
The matter would be revisited after the report of the royal commission, and if local government was reformed to "a single authority that made sense in transport terms".
The Lords amendment was defeated 262 to 212.
The government moved fast, and notices dated November 4, 1968 appear in the following day's paper with the four Passenger Transport Areas set out. Any person "providing road passenger services by stage carriage" had until December 31st to make representations.
When there is an opportunity for the community, we need to tackle some of the categorisation for Wales. I'm not too familliar with the setup in Wales so I've broadly avoided it, but we have Category:Towns in Wales by historic county and Category:Towns in historic Monmouthshire etc....
Infact, I've just realised we may have a sock puppet via User:ArfonOwen who set most of these up. Joy.
- I've asked User:Owain if he's been using a sockpuppet. It may be viewed as bad faith on my part but I think the comparable contribution style and username warrents that I at least ask - WP:COMMONSENSE. Alot of recategorisation and forking has gone on by User:ArfonOwen since I challenged Owain last month regarding a possible conflict of interest. Certainly a possibility of sock puppetry and policy circumvention.
- The categorisation for the demarcation of Wales seems like one huge mess that needs touching upon sometime in the future to bring it inline with the good work done for England. Maybe one day I can develop infobox maps for the principal areas, of which the English equivalents seems to have reduced the amount of forking drastically.
- Anyway, it's good to see you're cleaning up the English birthplace categories for now. I'll review the reply from Owain and see what action needs to be taken, if any. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
What are these, in Northern Ireland we have Counties and also Districts which are used in local government, but I have never heard the term Lieutenancy areas used in any capicity.--Padraig (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I come from Northern Ireland and have never heard of them, care to explain who these people are because they are not in Northern Ireland.--Padraig (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I just want to ask if it is okay to request the move of Talk:London/Archive 6 back to Talk:London as the whole history of the talk page has gone to the archive as well. And happy new year. Simply south (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK. It seemed rather abrupt changing from one way to the other. Maybe it should be noted in that archive that most of the history of talk:London is also there. Simply south (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, and happy new year! I hope all is well,
I'm not sure if you had noticed, but Template:Cambridgeshire is a current point of contention as to it's layout (believe it or not). There's actually a minor dispute taking place on the talk page right now. Of course I agree with your changes as it brings the template inline with the rest of the nation, but a breif comment on the talk page may help here, even if purely demonstrating the level of support. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you've been doing work to the pages created relating to the SSSI list. Just wanted to say thanks. I'm not all that familiar with working co-ordinates and the South-East, since I live in the North-West. Thanks once again. :) Best, Rudget. 22:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not really. I used the information of here under the co-ordinate section. But when clicking on the map reference it gives this. Ah actualy, I've just realised the former is bearing west and the latter east. I'll fix it now. Rudget. 22:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
London Meetup - January 12, 2008
Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
counties - please stop
You're removing links to the page about counties. Changing "traditional" to "ancient" may be OK, but please stop removing the link - I've seen it at Leeds (UK Parliament constituency) but I see from your contribs list that you're doing it wholesale. Please stop. PamD (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at the Leeds constituency page, it needs a link to "county" - whatever the name of it. I'm sure there are many other pages where the link is also needed. PamD (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- It might have been useful to amend the links to that, and/or to add a hatnote to Counties of the United Kingdom to refer "ancient", "historic" or "traditional" to Historic counties of England. But I think that removing vast numbers of links from articles is disruptive. PamD (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at the Leeds constituency page, it needs a link to "county" - whatever the name of it. I'm sure there are many other pages where the link is also needed. PamD (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)